<?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 (8) TMI 850 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165001</link>
    <description>Pendency of a separate revision application before the Tribunal was treated as materially different from a pending appeal on the assessment merits, so the earlier Supreme Court rule on simultaneous appeal and revision did not apply; the first issue was decided against the assessee. Revisional power delegated under the statutory notification could not be exercised by an officer to revise an order passed by an authority of the same rank, and the contrary position was treated as no longer pressed; the second issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The reference was thus answered partly against the assessee and partly in its favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 850 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165001</link>
      <description>Pendency of a separate revision application before the Tribunal was treated as materially different from a pending appeal on the assessment merits, so the earlier Supreme Court rule on simultaneous appeal and revision did not apply; the first issue was decided against the assessee. Revisional power delegated under the statutory notification could not be exercised by an officer to revise an order passed by an authority of the same rank, and the contrary position was treated as no longer pressed; the second issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The reference was thus answered partly against the assessee and partly in its favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>