<?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>1991 (2) TMI 361 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156243</link>
    <description>Rectification powers under section 21-A are limited to correcting a mistake apparent from the record, meaning a patent error that does not require elaborate argument. A mere change of opinion by a later Presiding Officer, substituting a fresh view for an earlier conclusion, is not a valid basis for rectification. Because no apparent error was shown on the facts stated, the rectification order was held to be without jurisdiction and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:03:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 361 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156243</link>
      <description>Rectification powers under section 21-A are limited to correcting a mistake apparent from the record, meaning a patent error that does not require elaborate argument. A mere change of opinion by a later Presiding Officer, substituting a fresh view for an earlier conclusion, is not a valid basis for rectification. Because no apparent error was shown on the facts stated, the rectification order was held to be without jurisdiction and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>