<?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>1968 (4) TMI 67 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148357</link>
    <description>An application for reference under section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was held time-barred because it was filed beyond sixty days from communication of the Board&#039;s order. The Calcutta HC held that section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows exclusion of time for obtaining a copy in appeals, leave to appeal, revision and review, does not extend to a reference application under the sales tax statute. Although section 29 permits the Limitation Act to apply to special law proceedings, the wording of section 12(2) was treated as confined to the specified proceedings only, so the petitioner could not exclude the copy-obtaining period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:07:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (4) TMI 67 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148357</link>
      <description>An application for reference under section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was held time-barred because it was filed beyond sixty days from communication of the Board&#039;s order. The Calcutta HC held that section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows exclusion of time for obtaining a copy in appeals, leave to appeal, revision and review, does not extend to a reference application under the sales tax statute. Although section 29 permits the Limitation Act to apply to special law proceedings, the wording of section 12(2) was treated as confined to the specified proceedings only, so the petitioner could not exclude the copy-obtaining period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>