https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161072 A subsequent change in law, by itself, is not sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing tax revision cases where the litigant has allowed the earlier adverse order to become final and offers no independent, satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Andhra Pradesh High Court distinguished earlier authority suggesting a change in law may justify condonation, and relied on later Supreme Court guidance to hold that mere legal developments at the instance of another litigant do not reopen concluded matters. On the facts noted, the explanations for delay were found inadequate, the condonation applications failed, and the connected tax revision cases could not be entertained. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:17:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161072 A subsequent change in law, by itself, is not sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing tax revision cases where the litigant has allowed the earlier adverse order to become final and offers no independent, satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Andhra Pradesh High Court distinguished earlier authority suggesting a change in law may justify condonation, and relied on later Supreme Court guidance to hold that mere legal developments at the instance of another litigant do not reopen concluded matters. On the facts noted, the explanations for delay were found inadequate, the condonation applications failed, and the connected tax revision cases could not be entertained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161072