<?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>1996 (3) TMI 481 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158251</link>
    <description>A statutory tribunal is not confined to powers expressly stated in the enactment; it also has implied incidental and ancillary powers reasonably necessary to make its jurisdiction effective. On that basis, the Sales Tax Tribunal had power to restore an appeal disposed of ex parte on merits in the absence of the respondent. The reasoning further emphasised consistency with a coordinate or larger Bench view on the same question and treated restoration as supported by analogous procedural principles. The contrary view was held unsustainable because the fact that the appeal had been decided on merits did not, by itself, exclude restoration where such power was needed to exercise the tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction effectively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:34:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 481 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158251</link>
      <description>A statutory tribunal is not confined to powers expressly stated in the enactment; it also has implied incidental and ancillary powers reasonably necessary to make its jurisdiction effective. On that basis, the Sales Tax Tribunal had power to restore an appeal disposed of ex parte on merits in the absence of the respondent. The reasoning further emphasised consistency with a coordinate or larger Bench view on the same question and treated restoration as supported by analogous procedural principles. The contrary view was held unsustainable because the fact that the appeal had been decided on merits did not, by itself, exclude restoration where such power was needed to exercise the tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction effectively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>