<?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>1985 (11) TMI 223 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155002</link>
    <description>Limitation for challenging an assessment order under the U.P. Sales Tax Act runs from service of the original assessment order, and a later rectification under section 22 does not restart that period for an appeal against the original order. The commentary also notes that the right of appeal is substantive and must be exercised within the statutory thirty-day period. In relation to delay, condonation under the Indian Limitation Act is discretionary and must be exercised judicially; where the tribunal found intentional delay, refusal to extend time was not treated as arbitrary or unlawful. The discussion therefore treats the appeal as time-barred and the refusal to condone delay as sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 18:56:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (11) TMI 223 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155002</link>
      <description>Limitation for challenging an assessment order under the U.P. Sales Tax Act runs from service of the original assessment order, and a later rectification under section 22 does not restart that period for an appeal against the original order. The commentary also notes that the right of appeal is substantive and must be exercised within the statutory thirty-day period. In relation to delay, condonation under the Indian Limitation Act is discretionary and must be exercised judicially; where the tribunal found intentional delay, refusal to extend time was not treated as arbitrary or unlawful. The discussion therefore treats the appeal as time-barred and the refusal to condone delay as sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>