<?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>2004 (7) TMI 346 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105792</link>
    <description>In an appeal under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, compliance with the surety-bond condition fixed for entertaining the appeal was treated as capable of extension where delay was explained. The document notes that the appellant said he was out of business and unable to arrange the bond in time, later furnished the bond, and the proper course was to extend time and hear the matter on merits rather than allow dismissal for non-compliance to stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 346 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105792</link>
      <description>In an appeal under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, compliance with the surety-bond condition fixed for entertaining the appeal was treated as capable of extension where delay was explained. The document notes that the appellant said he was out of business and unable to arrange the bond in time, later furnished the bond, and the proper course was to extend time and hear the matter on merits rather than allow dismissal for non-compliance to stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>