<?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>1990 (8) TMI 418 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309059</link>
    <description>Revisional and mutation powers affecting property entries must be exercised within a reasonable time, even where the revenue code prescribes no express limitation. Where a purchaser has acted on a certified mutation entry and altered position, cancellation after about four years was impermissible and the interference was vitiated by delay. Proceedings under Rule 108 are confined to the correctness of the revenue record; revenue authorities cannot cancel an entry by deciding that the underlying transaction violates a special enactment, because that question belongs to the competent authority under that statute. The impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction and were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2023 11:07:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722121" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 418 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309059</link>
      <description>Revisional and mutation powers affecting property entries must be exercised within a reasonable time, even where the revenue code prescribes no express limitation. Where a purchaser has acted on a certified mutation entry and altered position, cancellation after about four years was impermissible and the interference was vitiated by delay. Proceedings under Rule 108 are confined to the correctness of the revenue record; revenue authorities cannot cancel an entry by deciding that the underlying transaction violates a special enactment, because that question belongs to the competent authority under that statute. The impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction and were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>