<?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 (7) TMI 364 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159524</link>
    <description>Production of satisfactory proof of payment of the admitted tax was treated as a condition precedent to an appeal being entertained. Once the first appellate authority found that requirement was not complied with, it was bound to dismiss the appeal and became functus officio, with no power to restore the appeal unless the statute expressly authorised it. On a further appeal, the Tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction was limited to examining whether that dismissal was within jurisdiction; it could not direct the appeal to be entertained merely because proof of payment was produced later. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to interfere with the dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 364 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159524</link>
      <description>Production of satisfactory proof of payment of the admitted tax was treated as a condition precedent to an appeal being entertained. Once the first appellate authority found that requirement was not complied with, it was bound to dismiss the appeal and became functus officio, with no power to restore the appeal unless the statute expressly authorised it. On a further appeal, the Tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction was limited to examining whether that dismissal was within jurisdiction; it could not direct the appeal to be entertained merely because proof of payment was produced later. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to interfere with the dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>