https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312913 Limitation for a revision application under section 53 was to run from the date the order was communicated, not merely from the date it was signed, where the affected party was not present when the order was made. The proviso required filing within ninety days and the statutory remedy had to remain real and effective, which would be defeated if time ran only from the order date despite later dispatch and receipt. The authority therefore erred in treating the revision as time-barred, and the rejection was unsustainable; the matters were remitted for decision on merits. en-us Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:36:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312913 Limitation for a revision application under section 53 was to run from the date the order was communicated, not merely from the date it was signed, where the affected party was not present when the order was made. The proviso required filing within ninety days and the statutory remedy had to remain real and effective, which would be defeated if time ran only from the order date despite later dispatch and receipt. The authority therefore erred in treating the revision as time-barred, and the rejection was unsustainable; the matters were remitted for decision on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312913