2004 (9) TMI 608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es, Hyderabad, has been challenged by way of these special appeals. 2. One of the grounds agitated to strike down the impugned order is that though the order is shown to have been passed on May 17, 1996, it was actually passed some time after May 17, 1996. Admittedly May 17, 1996 was the last date in view of the law of limitation, when the order could have been passed by the revisional authori .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellants has placed reliance on a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah Co. [1994] 93 STC 406, wherein under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any explanation, whatsoever, for the delayed service on the petitioner, of the order, the court should presume that the order was not made on the date it was purporte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X