<?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>2007 (9) TMI 581 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163683</link>
    <description>A statutory revisional order under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was held invalid because the officer who decided the revision was not the same officer who had heard the parties. In a revision involving a judicial function, the authority that receives the personal hearing must ordinarily itself determine the matter; a successor officer cannot issue the order without rehearing the parties, as this makes the hearing illusory and breaches natural justice. The impugned revisional order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 581 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163683</link>
      <description>A statutory revisional order under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was held invalid because the officer who decided the revision was not the same officer who had heard the parties. In a revision involving a judicial function, the authority that receives the personal hearing must ordinarily itself determine the matter; a successor officer cannot issue the order without rehearing the parties, as this makes the hearing illusory and breaches natural justice. The impugned revisional order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>