<?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 (9) TMI 212 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153521</link>
    <description>An appeal was found not maintainable where the statutory pre-deposit required for hearing had not been made. An earlier deposit and a pending application for extension of time did not amount to compliance with the mandatory condition, and the assessee remained responsible for ensuring the prescribed deposit before the appeal was taken up. The rejection of the appeal for non-deposit was therefore justified, and no error was shown in the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:56:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170556" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (9) TMI 212 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153521</link>
      <description>An appeal was found not maintainable where the statutory pre-deposit required for hearing had not been made. An earlier deposit and a pending application for extension of time did not amount to compliance with the mandatory condition, and the assessee remained responsible for ensuring the prescribed deposit before the appeal was taken up. The rejection of the appeal for non-deposit was therefore justified, and no error was shown in the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>