<?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>2026 (5) TMI 251 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791049</link>
    <description>A rectification order was found unsustainable because it did not consider the petitioner&#039;s replies or the submissions made at the personal hearing, despite an earlier remand requiring fresh consideration. The court treated the omission as rendering the order non-speaking and procedurally defective. The order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with a fresh reasoned decision after hearing both parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:09:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 251 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791049</link>
      <description>A rectification order was found unsustainable because it did not consider the petitioner&#039;s replies or the submissions made at the personal hearing, despite an earlier remand requiring fresh consideration. The court treated the omission as rendering the order non-speaking and procedurally defective. The order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with a fresh reasoned decision after hearing both parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>