<?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 422 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158582</link>
    <description>A restoration application for a revision petition dismissed for default cannot be filed at any indefinite time merely because the governing proviso uses the word &quot;afterwards&quot;. Where no specific limitation period is prescribed, the applicant must move the Tribunal within a reasonable time and also show sufficient cause for non-appearance when the matter was called on for hearing. The Tribunal may examine both requirements, and refusal to restore is justified if the petition itself is delayed beyond a reasonable period. On the facts noted, the applicant failed to discharge that burden, so the refusal to restore the revision petition was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:41:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 422 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158582</link>
      <description>A restoration application for a revision petition dismissed for default cannot be filed at any indefinite time merely because the governing proviso uses the word &quot;afterwards&quot;. Where no specific limitation period is prescribed, the applicant must move the Tribunal within a reasonable time and also show sufficient cause for non-appearance when the matter was called on for hearing. The Tribunal may examine both requirements, and refusal to restore is justified if the petition itself is delayed beyond a reasonable period. On the facts noted, the applicant failed to discharge that burden, so the refusal to restore the revision petition was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>