https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387004 A delay application cannot be rejected solely on an erroneous view that a second appeal is not maintainable under Section 28(3) of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 unless the disputed amount is deposited or paid. The Tribunal had not independently examined whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation and instead relied on the maintainability objection adopted by the First Appellate Authority. That approach was not accepted, and the refusal to condone delay could not stand. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the second appeal was restored for fresh consideration of the condonation application on its own merits. en-us Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:29:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387004 A delay application cannot be rejected solely on an erroneous view that a second appeal is not maintainable under Section 28(3) of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 unless the disputed amount is deposited or paid. The Tribunal had not independently examined whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation and instead relied on the maintainability objection adopted by the First Appellate Authority. That approach was not accepted, and the refusal to condone delay could not stand. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the second appeal was restored for fresh consideration of the condonation application on its own merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387004