https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412082 The restoration application was rejected as hopelessly delayed because the record did not reliably prove that any earlier restoration request had been filed in January 2014. The later application filed in March 2021 was inconsistent with the claim of an earlier filing, since it proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not received the dismissal order. The Court also noted repeated absence before the assessing and revisional authorities, and held that the explanation did not demonstrate real diligence in pursuing the matter. The application was therefore treated as barred by delay and laches and was correctly rejected. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Sep 2021 08:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412082 The restoration application was rejected as hopelessly delayed because the record did not reliably prove that any earlier restoration request had been filed in January 2014. The later application filed in March 2021 was inconsistent with the claim of an earlier filing, since it proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not received the dismissal order. The Court also noted repeated absence before the assessing and revisional authorities, and held that the explanation did not demonstrate real diligence in pursuing the matter. The application was therefore treated as barred by delay and laches and was correctly rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 06 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412082