<?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>1986 (2) TMI 305 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154492</link>
    <description>Delay in filing a second appeal was held liable to condonation where the assessee supported the application with an affidavit and medical certificate showing that the person conducting the case was ill and confined to bed. In the absence of any counter-affidavit or rebuttal evidence, the facts were not displaced. The court found that rejection of the medical certificate merely because some writing appeared in a different ink was insufficient to disbelieve the supporting material. The expression &quot;sufficient cause&quot; was to receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice and avoid shutting out a hearing on merits on conjecture, so the appeal could not be treated as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:43:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 305 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154492</link>
      <description>Delay in filing a second appeal was held liable to condonation where the assessee supported the application with an affidavit and medical certificate showing that the person conducting the case was ill and confined to bed. In the absence of any counter-affidavit or rebuttal evidence, the facts were not displaced. The court found that rejection of the medical certificate merely because some writing appeared in a different ink was insufficient to disbelieve the supporting material. The expression &quot;sufficient cause&quot; was to receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice and avoid shutting out a hearing on merits on conjecture, so the appeal could not be treated as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>