<?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 498 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155177</link>
    <description>Where the Board of Revenue accepted a photostat copy of the original bill and found that scrutiny of the original document was necessary, it could either decide the second appeal itself after examining that bill or, because the dispute involved a factual question, remand the matter to the authority below. The High Court held that remand was proper in these circumstances and answered the referred question in the affirmative, finding the remand necessary and warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:11:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 498 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155177</link>
      <description>Where the Board of Revenue accepted a photostat copy of the original bill and found that scrutiny of the original document was necessary, it could either decide the second appeal itself after examining that bill or, because the dispute involved a factual question, remand the matter to the authority below. The High Court held that remand was proper in these circumstances and answered the referred question in the affirmative, finding the remand necessary and warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>