<?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>1995 (2) TMI 362 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157770</link>
    <description>Limitation for a GST appeal runs from communication of the revisional order to the dealer or person under section 39(3) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Where the record did not prove service of the revisional order on the assessee, the appeal could not be rejected as time-barred merely because one partner signed the proceedings sheet, especially when his authority to represent the assessee was disputed. The appellate authority was required to examine the service issue and the partner&#039;s authority on the factual record before deciding limitation. The dismissal as barred by limitation was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:19:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 362 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157770</link>
      <description>Limitation for a GST appeal runs from communication of the revisional order to the dealer or person under section 39(3) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Where the record did not prove service of the revisional order on the assessee, the appeal could not be rejected as time-barred merely because one partner signed the proceedings sheet, especially when his authority to represent the assessee was disputed. The appellate authority was required to examine the service issue and the partner&#039;s authority on the factual record before deciding limitation. The dismissal as barred by limitation was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>