<?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>2008 (3) TMI 626 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163016</link>
    <description>Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was construed as conferring a broad suo motu revisional power on the Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of &quot;any order&quot; passed in a proceeding under the Act, including appellate orders, unless expressly excluded. The wider supervisory power was distinguished from revision on application under the other sub-sections, and the legislative history supported this interpretation. The Court also held that, even without an express limitation period, suo motu revision must be initiated within a reasonable time; initiation about two years after communication of the appellate order was not unreasonable on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 626 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163016</link>
      <description>Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was construed as conferring a broad suo motu revisional power on the Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of &quot;any order&quot; passed in a proceeding under the Act, including appellate orders, unless expressly excluded. The wider supervisory power was distinguished from revision on application under the other sub-sections, and the legislative history supported this interpretation. The Court also held that, even without an express limitation period, suo motu revision must be initiated within a reasonable time; initiation about two years after communication of the appellate order was not unreasonable on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>