<?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 (12) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42576</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction was declined because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal against the Assistant Collector&#039;s order, so the petition was dismissed in limine. The Court further protected the right of appeal by directing that, if filed within two weeks, the appeal should not be rejected on limitation and should be decided expeditiously.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:44:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (12) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42576</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction was declined because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal against the Assistant Collector&#039;s order, so the petition was dismissed in limine. The Court further protected the right of appeal by directing that, if filed within two weeks, the appeal should not be rejected on limitation and should be decided expeditiously.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>