<?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>1977 (4) TMI 165 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152461</link>
    <description>The revisional power under section 23(4)(a) was held to be subject to rule 80, which barred suo motu revision of appellate orders. Even though the assessee&#039;s appeals were summarily dismissed for non-removal of defects, the assessment orders were treated as merged in the appellate orders, so the original assessments were no longer independently open to revision. The revisional orders were also invalid because the assessee received only a few days&#039; notice of the grounds, leaving insufficient time to meet the case and denying a fair opportunity of hearing. The revisional orders were quashed for want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:43:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (4) TMI 165 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152461</link>
      <description>The revisional power under section 23(4)(a) was held to be subject to rule 80, which barred suo motu revision of appellate orders. Even though the assessee&#039;s appeals were summarily dismissed for non-removal of defects, the assessment orders were treated as merged in the appellate orders, so the original assessments were no longer independently open to revision. The revisional orders were also invalid because the assessee received only a few days&#039; notice of the grounds, leaving insufficient time to meet the case and denying a fair opportunity of hearing. The revisional orders were quashed for want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>