authorize Walker to resurrect its claims by re-filing its 188 Petitions with the BOR, nor did the time limit for initiating an original tax appeal begin anew after Walker re-filed its 188 Petitions. See I.C. 6-1.1-15-5(d). In short, Walker-which has not shown that it raised any new issues in its re-filed 183 Petitions-appears to be trying for a second bite at the apple here. The law, however, provides Walker with no second bite at the apple; when a taxpayer does not comply with the provisions of Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-15-5, then this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the taxpayer's claim. I.C. § 33-3-5-11(a); Indiana Model Co., 639 N.E.2d at 698. Cf. Lakeview Village, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County, 232 Kan. 711, 659 P.2d 187, 197 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Automobile Sales Co. v. Johnson, 174 Tenn.
holding that a postconviction proceeding is pending under  2244d2 until the time to appeal expires holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the thirty day time limit was mandatory but not jurisdictional holding that time limit for initiating a tax appeal under kansas jurisdictional statute was a limitation  upon the right itself so that when time expires the right to bring such an action is extinguished