<?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>2012 (9) TMI 248 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216440</link>
    <description>A tribunal may issue clarificatory or implementation directions to give effect to its final order where the later directions do not alter that order but only secure its proper execution. Here, the earlier order had attained finality and the subsequent miscellaneous applications were filed to implement it under the Administrative Tribunals Act and the Procedure Rules. The later directions were treated as aid to execution, not as a fresh or inconsistent adjudication, because the department had misconstrued the original directions. The contention that the tribunal had become functus officio was rejected, and the challenge to the implementation orders failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 248 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216440</link>
      <description>A tribunal may issue clarificatory or implementation directions to give effect to its final order where the later directions do not alter that order but only secure its proper execution. Here, the earlier order had attained finality and the subsequent miscellaneous applications were filed to implement it under the Administrative Tribunals Act and the Procedure Rules. The later directions were treated as aid to execution, not as a fresh or inconsistent adjudication, because the department had misconstrued the original directions. The contention that the tribunal had become functus officio was rejected, and the challenge to the implementation orders failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>