https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155281 Interference under Article 226 was declined where the Board of Revenue refused to restore a second appeal dismissed in default for non-appearance. The petitioner had been given repeated opportunities but failed to prosecute the matter, and the restoration plea was rejected for negligence. The explanation for absence was found unsatisfactory because there was no proof that the counsel said to have gone out was the counsel on record, and no adequate reason was shown for anyone to appear on the petitioner's behalf. The court treated sufficiency of cause as a question of fact and found no error warranting writ interference. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:40:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155281 Interference under Article 226 was declined where the Board of Revenue refused to restore a second appeal dismissed in default for non-appearance. The petitioner had been given repeated opportunities but failed to prosecute the matter, and the restoration plea was rejected for negligence. The explanation for absence was found unsatisfactory because there was no proof that the counsel said to have gone out was the counsel on record, and no adequate reason was shown for anyone to appear on the petitioner's behalf. The court treated sufficiency of cause as a question of fact and found no error warranting writ interference. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 01 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155281