<?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>1989 (6) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46416</link>
    <description>An ex parte revisional order was set aside because the petitioners had not been given an opportunity to place their case before the revisional authority. The Court also noted the subsequent acquittal in the connected criminal matter on the same allegations and considered fresh consideration appropriate. The revision was therefore remitted for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording the petitioners a hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:03:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (6) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46416</link>
      <description>An ex parte revisional order was set aside because the petitioners had not been given an opportunity to place their case before the revisional authority. The Court also noted the subsequent acquittal in the connected criminal matter on the same allegations and considered fresh consideration appropriate. The revision was therefore remitted for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording the petitioners a hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>