<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (11) TMI 662 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781194</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction was declined where an appellate remedy under the CGST regime was available, as the controversy involved issues better examined by the appellate forum and no exceptional ground justified departure from the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies. The petitioner was left at liberty to file the statutory appeal within the stipulated time, and the appellate authority was directed to decide it on merits without raising limitation, with all contentions kept open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 08:17:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 662 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781194</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction was declined where an appellate remedy under the CGST regime was available, as the controversy involved issues better examined by the appellate forum and no exceptional ground justified departure from the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies. The petitioner was left at liberty to file the statutory appeal within the stipulated time, and the appellate authority was directed to decide it on merits without raising limitation, with all contentions kept open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>