<?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>2016 (4) TMI 436 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326322</link>
    <description>Limitation for filing the statutory appeal was held to run from the date on which the certified copy of the assessment order was actually served, not from an alleged earlier dispatch by registered post that was not shown to have been served. On the record, actual service was found to have taken place on 27.8.2015, so that date alone was relevant for computing limitation. The appeal was therefore within time, and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain it and decide it on merits in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:59:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 436 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326322</link>
      <description>Limitation for filing the statutory appeal was held to run from the date on which the certified copy of the assessment order was actually served, not from an alleged earlier dispatch by registered post that was not shown to have been served. On the record, actual service was found to have taken place on 27.8.2015, so that date alone was relevant for computing limitation. The appeal was therefore within time, and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain it and decide it on merits in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>