<?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>2016 (7) TMI 727 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330129</link>
    <description>A revisional court will not interfere where bail is cancelled for breach of imposed conditions, including monetary and restrictive terms, if the cancellation order is otherwise legal and proper. A party also cannot raise for the first time in revision a new legal contention that was already available before the lower court, and ignorance of law is no answer. The note further states that a challenge seeking to dispute the nature of the alleged offence under the Finance Act could not be introduced at the revisional stage when it had not been urged earlier. On that basis, no revisional interference was warranted and the cancellation order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 13:50:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 727 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330129</link>
      <description>A revisional court will not interfere where bail is cancelled for breach of imposed conditions, including monetary and restrictive terms, if the cancellation order is otherwise legal and proper. A party also cannot raise for the first time in revision a new legal contention that was already available before the lower court, and ignorance of law is no answer. The note further states that a challenge seeking to dispute the nature of the alleged offence under the Finance Act could not be introduced at the revisional stage when it had not been urged earlier. On that basis, no revisional interference was warranted and the cancellation order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>