<?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>1991 (1) TMI 412 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156758</link>
    <description>A vested right of appeal accrues when assessment proceedings are initiated, and that right includes the corresponding entitlement to seek condonation of delay under the law then in force. An amendment limiting the time for condonation does not apply to pending accrued rights unless retrospective operation is stated expressly or by necessary intendment. In the absence of such intention, the pre-existing appellate remedy is preserved by the general clauses statute and the amended proviso cannot defeat it. The appeal was therefore governed by the unamended provision, and the order allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for decision on merits was upheld as legally correct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:34:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 412 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156758</link>
      <description>A vested right of appeal accrues when assessment proceedings are initiated, and that right includes the corresponding entitlement to seek condonation of delay under the law then in force. An amendment limiting the time for condonation does not apply to pending accrued rights unless retrospective operation is stated expressly or by necessary intendment. In the absence of such intention, the pre-existing appellate remedy is preserved by the general clauses statute and the amended proviso cannot defeat it. The appeal was therefore governed by the unamended provision, and the order allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for decision on merits was upheld as legally correct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>