<?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>1982 (11) TMI 146 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153500</link>
    <description>A revisional authority acting under the Act must comply with natural justice and hear the affected parties before deciding the matter; an ex parte revisional order made behind their back was treated as a nullity and set aside, with remand for fresh decision after hearing. Where petitioners were heard in the impugned proceedings but failed to pursue the statutory revision and filed writ proceedings after substantial delay, the writ remedy was declined as not maintainable. The commentary therefore distinguishes between breach of audi alteram partem, which invalidates the revisional order, and belated invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting the available statutory remedy, which may bar relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (11) TMI 146 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153500</link>
      <description>A revisional authority acting under the Act must comply with natural justice and hear the affected parties before deciding the matter; an ex parte revisional order made behind their back was treated as a nullity and set aside, with remand for fresh decision after hearing. Where petitioners were heard in the impugned proceedings but failed to pursue the statutory revision and filed writ proceedings after substantial delay, the writ remedy was declined as not maintainable. The commentary therefore distinguishes between breach of audi alteram partem, which invalidates the revisional order, and belated invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting the available statutory remedy, which may bar relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>