<?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>2010 (7) TMI 896 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164825</link>
    <description>A judicial or quasi-judicial tax order acquires legal effect only on formal pronouncement or delivery in the manner required by law; an undisclosed or uncommunicated order is non est. Applying that principle, the High Court treated the earlier appellate order as ineffective until properly communicated. On the jurisdictional challenge to the reference of the appeals to the Full Bench, the Court accepted the procedural course reflected in the record and held that the reference was not invalid merely because the prior order had not been communicated. The writ petitions were rejected and the challenge to the reference order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 896 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164825</link>
      <description>A judicial or quasi-judicial tax order acquires legal effect only on formal pronouncement or delivery in the manner required by law; an undisclosed or uncommunicated order is non est. Applying that principle, the High Court treated the earlier appellate order as ineffective until properly communicated. On the jurisdictional challenge to the reference of the appeals to the Full Bench, the Court accepted the procedural course reflected in the record and held that the reference was not invalid merely because the prior order had not been communicated. The writ petitions were rejected and the challenge to the reference order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>