<?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 (10) TMI 123 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333103</link>
    <description>Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 allows an appeal within thirty days of service of the order, with a further discretionary thirty-day period on sufficient cause; beyond that outer limit, the statutory bar cannot be extended. The article notes that the assessment order was found to have been served, the petitioner knew of it well before filing, and the explanation for waiting for departmental communication was rejected as untenable. It also states that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass the self-contained limitation scheme, and that prolonged inaction without proper explanation amounts to delay and laches. The delay was therefore treated as incondonable and the time-bar challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 13:30:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 123 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333103</link>
      <description>Section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 allows an appeal within thirty days of service of the order, with a further discretionary thirty-day period on sufficient cause; beyond that outer limit, the statutory bar cannot be extended. The article notes that the assessment order was found to have been served, the petitioner knew of it well before filing, and the explanation for waiting for departmental communication was rejected as untenable. It also states that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass the self-contained limitation scheme, and that prolonged inaction without proper explanation amounts to delay and laches. The delay was therefore treated as incondonable and the time-bar challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>