https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111040 Under a statutory rehabilitation scheme, failure by the State to respond within the prescribed period resulted in deemed consent, and later objections could not reverse that position. A request styled as clarification was treated as an impermissible review because the authority had no power to reopen its final order. Supervisory interference was also declined, since no perversity, jurisdictional error, or error apparent on the face of the record was shown. As the scheme had already been acted upon and the equities did not justify disruption, the challenge failed and the rehabilitation framework was left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111040 Under a statutory rehabilitation scheme, failure by the State to respond within the prescribed period resulted in deemed consent, and later objections could not reverse that position. A request styled as clarification was treated as an impermissible review because the authority had no power to reopen its final order. Supervisory interference was also declined, since no perversity, jurisdictional error, or error apparent on the face of the record was shown. As the scheme had already been acted upon and the equities did not justify disruption, the challenge failed and the rehabilitation framework was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111040