<?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>1988 (4) TMI 420 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155776</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s common order was passed on an incorrect assumption that the same issue arose in all matters, so it did not decide the real controversy in the two revisions. The High Court held that the order could not stand to that extent and required fresh consideration of those revisions. The order was therefore set aside only in part, with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the matters afresh on the actual issues raised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 16:26:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 420 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155776</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s common order was passed on an incorrect assumption that the same issue arose in all matters, so it did not decide the real controversy in the two revisions. The High Court held that the order could not stand to that extent and required fresh consideration of those revisions. The order was therefore set aside only in part, with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the matters afresh on the actual issues raised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>