<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1111 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164445</link>
    <description>A reference application under section 70 was rejected as time-barred because it was filed after more than two years&#039; delay. No condonation application accompanied the reference request, and the affidavit explanation for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The HC therefore did not examine the merits of the proposed questions and confined its consideration to limitation. On that basis, the reference application was rightly rejected for delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:18:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1111 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164445</link>
      <description>A reference application under section 70 was rejected as time-barred because it was filed after more than two years&#039; delay. No condonation application accompanied the reference request, and the affidavit explanation for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The HC therefore did not examine the merits of the proposed questions and confined its consideration to limitation. On that basis, the reference application was rightly rejected for delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>