<?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>1988 (7) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314189</link>
    <description>A quasi-judicial determination under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act attains finality once the parties are heard and the market value and proper stamp duty are decided. In the absence of an express statutory provision, the Collector cannot reopen, review, or cancel that completed adjudication merely because a later objection or higher offer is made, and no inherent review power can be assumed. As the original reference had already concluded that the sale consideration reflected the true value, the later cancelling order and the consequential demand for additional duty and penalty were without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2024 10:30:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314189</link>
      <description>A quasi-judicial determination under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act attains finality once the parties are heard and the market value and proper stamp duty are decided. In the absence of an express statutory provision, the Collector cannot reopen, review, or cancel that completed adjudication merely because a later objection or higher offer is made, and no inherent review power can be assumed. As the original reference had already concluded that the sale consideration reflected the true value, the later cancelling order and the consequential demand for additional duty and penalty were without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>