<?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>1987 (3) TMI 497 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154843</link>
    <description>A revision does not lie against an order that merely remands the matter to the assessing authority and does not finally determine the legal issue or the correctness of the penalty computation. The impugned order only required the authority to pass a speaking order on the manner of computation, leaving the matter to be decided afresh. In these circumstances, no concluded question of law arose for revisionary scrutiny at that stage, and interference on the merits of the penalty computation was unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:07:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 497 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154843</link>
      <description>A revision does not lie against an order that merely remands the matter to the assessing authority and does not finally determine the legal issue or the correctness of the penalty computation. The impugned order only required the authority to pass a speaking order on the manner of computation, leaving the matter to be decided afresh. In these circumstances, no concluded question of law arose for revisionary scrutiny at that stage, and interference on the merits of the penalty computation was unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>