<?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>2013 (3) TMI 336 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221570</link>
    <description>A challenge to cancellation of a provisional registration certificate was held barred by delay and laches where the petition was filed after more than six years. The certificate, issued under Section 23 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and the applicable rules, had been cancelled after the holder failed to produce account books and documents despite repeated notices. The explanation that knowledge of the cancellation was acquired only later was rejected because the holder was expected to monitor the matter before expiry of the certificate. No sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay, and refusal to condone the delay was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 336 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221570</link>
      <description>A challenge to cancellation of a provisional registration certificate was held barred by delay and laches where the petition was filed after more than six years. The certificate, issued under Section 23 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and the applicable rules, had been cancelled after the holder failed to produce account books and documents despite repeated notices. The explanation that knowledge of the cancellation was acquired only later was rejected because the holder was expected to monitor the matter before expiry of the certificate. No sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay, and refusal to condone the delay was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>