<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1280 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165607</link>
    <description>A revisional authority could validly exercise statutory revision over an earlier revisional order because the original assessment had merged into that order; the jurisdictional objection therefore failed. The authority was also entitled to decide issues finally where the record was sufficient and to remand only matters needing further inquiry, so a restricted remand with partial final determination was within jurisdiction. The challenge to the revisional order was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1280 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165607</link>
      <description>A revisional authority could validly exercise statutory revision over an earlier revisional order because the original assessment had merged into that order; the jurisdictional objection therefore failed. The authority was also entitled to decide issues finally where the record was sufficient and to remand only matters needing further inquiry, so a restricted remand with partial final determination was within jurisdiction. The challenge to the revisional order was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>