<?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>2003 (5) TMI 502 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162377</link>
    <description>A concluded writ judgment cannot be altered by modification or clarification unless the alleged omission is a genuine accidental slip or inadvertent error. Here, the earlier pleadings, exemption order and notifications showed that the relief was confined to HR coils used for manufacture of TMBP, and there was no pleaded claim for exemption for HR coils used in other cold rolled products. The omission to mention other cold rolled products was therefore not a typographical mistake, and the application was treated as an impermissible attempt to enlarge the substantive relief after final disposal. The request for modification was rejected and the earlier judgment remained unchanged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:44:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 502 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162377</link>
      <description>A concluded writ judgment cannot be altered by modification or clarification unless the alleged omission is a genuine accidental slip or inadvertent error. Here, the earlier pleadings, exemption order and notifications showed that the relief was confined to HR coils used for manufacture of TMBP, and there was no pleaded claim for exemption for HR coils used in other cold rolled products. The omission to mention other cold rolled products was therefore not a typographical mistake, and the application was treated as an impermissible attempt to enlarge the substantive relief after final disposal. The request for modification was rejected and the earlier judgment remained unchanged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>