<?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 (8) TMI 1713 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797839</link>
    <description>Delay in pronouncement of a reserved indirect-tax writ petition prompted its release for fresh hearing before the regular Bench handling such petitions. Applying the timely-pronouncement principle concerning reserved judgments, the Bench considered that it could not comply with the stipulated timelines and therefore directed reassignment rather than deliver the reserved judgment. Interim status quo was continued for four weeks pending placement before the regular Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 20:42:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1713 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797839</link>
      <description>Delay in pronouncement of a reserved indirect-tax writ petition prompted its release for fresh hearing before the regular Bench handling such petitions. Applying the timely-pronouncement principle concerning reserved judgments, the Bench considered that it could not comply with the stipulated timelines and therefore directed reassignment rather than deliver the reserved judgment. Interim status quo was continued for four weeks pending placement before the regular Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>