<?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>2009 (9) TMI 907 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165118</link>
    <description>Delay in filing appeals against revisional orders may be condoned where the explanation is credible and refusal would defeat adjudication on merits. The Court accepted that labour unrest and related litigation had affected access to premises and records, and noted that the petitioner had pursued other tax proceedings diligently, which supported the claim that the impugned orders were not knowingly ignored. Although the delay was substantial and the conduct was negligent, it was not so culpable as to justify shutting out merits. The delay was condoned, the appeals were permitted to proceed, and costs were imposed to balance equities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 907 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165118</link>
      <description>Delay in filing appeals against revisional orders may be condoned where the explanation is credible and refusal would defeat adjudication on merits. The Court accepted that labour unrest and related litigation had affected access to premises and records, and noted that the petitioner had pursued other tax proceedings diligently, which supported the claim that the impugned orders were not knowingly ignored. Although the delay was substantial and the conduct was negligent, it was not so culpable as to justify shutting out merits. The delay was condoned, the appeals were permitted to proceed, and costs were imposed to balance equities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>