https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161284 Limitation for filing reference applications under section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act did not begin because valid service of the Tribunal's orders was not established. The alleged delivery through the Tribunal registry lacked identifiable acknowledgment and did not satisfy rule 46, while the presumption from registered post was rebutted by the petitioner's denial of receipt and the absence of postal proof of delivery to an authorised person. Delay and laches did not bar relief on these facts. The delay was therefore condoned, the reference applications were not treated as time-barred, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merits. en-us Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:36:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161284 Limitation for filing reference applications under section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act did not begin because valid service of the Tribunal's orders was not established. The alleged delivery through the Tribunal registry lacked identifiable acknowledgment and did not satisfy rule 46, while the presumption from registered post was rebutted by the petitioner's denial of receipt and the absence of postal proof of delivery to an authorised person. Delay and laches did not bar relief on these facts. The delay was therefore condoned, the reference applications were not treated as time-barred, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161284