https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62653 An appeal filed beyond the sixty-day period under section 20(1) was treated as time-barred where the dealer could not displace service of the section 11(3) notice sent by registered acknowledgment due post. The plea that notice was not served on an authorised person or was sent to an incorrect address did not defeat the limitation finding. Condonation was refused because the explanation for delay was not pleaded in the memorandum of appeal, no contemporaneous application was made, and the illness-based medical certificate was viewed as an afterthought. The governing principle is that delay must be bona fide, specifically pleaded, and supported by credible material. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62653 An appeal filed beyond the sixty-day period under section 20(1) was treated as time-barred where the dealer could not displace service of the section 11(3) notice sent by registered acknowledgment due post. The plea that notice was not served on an authorised person or was sent to an incorrect address did not defeat the limitation finding. Condonation was refused because the explanation for delay was not pleaded in the memorandum of appeal, no contemporaneous application was made, and the illness-based medical certificate was viewed as an afterthought. The governing principle is that delay must be bona fide, specifically pleaded, and supported by credible material. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 25 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62653