https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127327 The revisional court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's discretionary order excusing delay, finding no error in the facts relied on for condonation. It also upheld the Tribunal's competence to entertain the appeal, accepting the recorded reasons as sufficient to sustain jurisdiction. On deduction under rule 18(2) read with rule 5(1)(k), the rule was applied by treating the deductible amount as the value of groundnut or kernel purchased and converted into oil and cake, with the oil turnover reduced by that input value and only the balance subjected to tax. The revisional challenge therefore failed. en-us Wed, 24 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:44:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127327 The revisional court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's discretionary order excusing delay, finding no error in the facts relied on for condonation. It also upheld the Tribunal's competence to entertain the appeal, accepting the recorded reasons as sufficient to sustain jurisdiction. On deduction under rule 18(2) read with rule 5(1)(k), the rule was applied by treating the deductible amount as the value of groundnut or kernel purchased and converted into oil and cake, with the oil turnover reduced by that input value and only the balance subjected to tax. The revisional challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 24 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127327