<?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>1984 (5) TMI 265 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190215</link>
    <description>The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to utilize the available legal remedies within the prescribed time limits. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and refraining from invoking inherent powers when specific statutory remedies are available. The failure to file a revision petition within the limitation period barred the court from exercising inherent jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:34:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (5) TMI 265 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190215</link>
      <description>The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to utilize the available legal remedies within the prescribed time limits. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and refraining from invoking inherent powers when specific statutory remedies are available. The failure to file a revision petition within the limitation period barred the court from exercising inherent jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>