<?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>1966 (7) TMI 68 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145203</link>
    <description>A summary rejection of a second appeal for failure to satisfy a preliminary pre-condition, such as payment of tax, is not a disposal on merits. In that situation, the appellate authority does not adjudicate the appeal or confirm the earlier order on merits, so the doctrine of merger does not operate as it would after substantive appellate determination. The earlier first appellate order therefore does not become immune from revision on that basis, and the Commissioner may still entertain a revision application unless another exception applies. The Commissioner&#039;s refusal to hear the revision was accordingly incorrect, and the matter was to be considered on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:52:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (7) TMI 68 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145203</link>
      <description>A summary rejection of a second appeal for failure to satisfy a preliminary pre-condition, such as payment of tax, is not a disposal on merits. In that situation, the appellate authority does not adjudicate the appeal or confirm the earlier order on merits, so the doctrine of merger does not operate as it would after substantive appellate determination. The earlier first appellate order therefore does not become immune from revision on that basis, and the Commissioner may still entertain a revision application unless another exception applies. The Commissioner&#039;s refusal to hear the revision was accordingly incorrect, and the matter was to be considered on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>