<?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>1982 (6) TMI 243 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153197</link>
    <description>In computing limitation for a reference application under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the time reasonably taken to obtain a certified copy of the revisional order is excludable where the procedural rules, read mutatis mutandis, contemplate annexing necessary documents and there is no express exclusion of the Limitation Act, 1963. The statutory form and rules were broad enough to include the impugned order copy as part of the case papers. On that basis, the application should not be treated as time-barred merely because of the copy-obtaining period, and any request for condonation of delay had to be reconsidered in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:48:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (6) TMI 243 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153197</link>
      <description>In computing limitation for a reference application under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the time reasonably taken to obtain a certified copy of the revisional order is excludable where the procedural rules, read mutatis mutandis, contemplate annexing necessary documents and there is no express exclusion of the Limitation Act, 1963. The statutory form and rules were broad enough to include the impugned order copy as part of the case papers. On that basis, the application should not be treated as time-barred merely because of the copy-obtaining period, and any request for condonation of delay had to be reconsidered in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>