<?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>Writ relief against private cryptocurrency exchange rejected where dispute was treated as private commercial and factual claims needed trial.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101591</link>
    <description>Writ relief against a private cryptocurrency exchange was refused because the dispute was found to be essentially private and commercial, even though many investors were said to be affected. The exchange entities were held not to be State under Article 12, as they were neither created, financed nor controlled by the State, and taxation of virtual digital assets did not change that position. The Court also declined regulatory mandamus and investigation by CBI or SIT. Claims for release of funds and compensation involved disputed facts, proof of loss and quantification, so they were left to civil, consumer or other competent fora. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Writ relief against private cryptocurrency exchange rejected where dispute was treated as private commercial and factual claims needed trial.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101591</link>
      <description>Writ relief against a private cryptocurrency exchange was refused because the dispute was found to be essentially private and commercial, even though many investors were said to be affected. The exchange entities were held not to be State under Article 12, as they were neither created, financed nor controlled by the State, and taxation of virtual digital assets did not change that position. The Court also declined regulatory mandamus and investigation by CBI or SIT. Claims for release of funds and compensation involved disputed facts, proof of loss and quantification, so they were left to civil, consumer or other competent fora. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>