<?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>2013 (3) TMI 613 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172011</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to an inter-departmental communication was premature because the communication was only a tentative step in an ongoing governmental process and did not finally determine rights or obligations. A show cause notice issued during a status quo order was not to be ignored merely on that basis, because it only initiated hearing on a proposed action and should ordinarily be answered before any final decision. The notice was also not shown to be without jurisdiction, as the competent authority could reconsider earlier recommendations and decide whether part of the lease area should be resumed. The final order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a reasoned decision after reply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 613 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172011</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to an inter-departmental communication was premature because the communication was only a tentative step in an ongoing governmental process and did not finally determine rights or obligations. A show cause notice issued during a status quo order was not to be ignored merely on that basis, because it only initiated hearing on a proposed action and should ordinarily be answered before any final decision. The notice was also not shown to be without jurisdiction, as the competent authority could reconsider earlier recommendations and decide whether part of the lease area should be resumed. The final order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a reasoned decision after reply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>