<?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>1979 (8) TMI 202 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152928</link>
    <description>An appellate tribunal dealing with an application to excuse delay must either decide the delay question itself or remit the matter on a proper legal basis; it cannot set aside the dismissal and require the party to file a fresh condonation application before the lower authority merely for that limited purpose. Here, the Tribunal&#039;s remand was held unjustified because it neither adjudicated the delay issue nor directed reconsideration on an appropriate basis, despite the appeals having been dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory tax deposit requirement. The remand order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the matters were directed to be disposed of afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:52:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (8) TMI 202 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152928</link>
      <description>An appellate tribunal dealing with an application to excuse delay must either decide the delay question itself or remit the matter on a proper legal basis; it cannot set aside the dismissal and require the party to file a fresh condonation application before the lower authority merely for that limited purpose. Here, the Tribunal&#039;s remand was held unjustified because it neither adjudicated the delay issue nor directed reconsideration on an appropriate basis, despite the appeals having been dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory tax deposit requirement. The remand order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the matters were directed to be disposed of afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>