<?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 (7) TMI 260 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154092</link>
    <description>An order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to condone delay and rejecting an appeal as time-barred is treated as an order under Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Because Section 36 permits an appeal to the Tribunal against any order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal, such a refusal to condone delay is itself appealable. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the challenge to its order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:02:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (7) TMI 260 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154092</link>
      <description>An order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refusing to condone delay and rejecting an appeal as time-barred is treated as an order under Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Because Section 36 permits an appeal to the Tribunal against any order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal, such a refusal to condone delay is itself appealable. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the challenge to its order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>