https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280457 Delay of 449 days in filing writ appeals was condoned because the explanation was found satisfactory in the context of the dispute and its financial implications for the State Exchequer. The Supreme Court also found that the High Court had not examined the substantial questions raised under Article 5(e)(i) and Explanation (ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. As the merits of the stamp duty controversy were not decided, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits after hearing all parties. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2019 10:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280457 Delay of 449 days in filing writ appeals was condoned because the explanation was found satisfactory in the context of the dispute and its financial implications for the State Exchequer. The Supreme Court also found that the High Court had not examined the substantial questions raised under Article 5(e)(i) and Explanation (ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. As the merits of the stamp duty controversy were not decided, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits after hearing all parties. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280457