<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1958 (11) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127777</link>
    <description>Under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, a prosecution for non-payment of assessed tax could not be used to challenge the validity or correctness of the assessment before the criminal court. The statute provided a complete machinery for assessment, appeal and revision, so the assessee had to pursue those remedies rather than mount a collateral attack in a prosecution under section 15(b). The Magistrate&#039;s role was limited to verifying that tax had been assessed under the Act, notice of demand had been served, and the amount remained unpaid within time; the court had no jurisdiction to reassess turnover or re-open the quantum. On that basis, the acquittals were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:49:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (11) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127777</link>
      <description>Under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, a prosecution for non-payment of assessed tax could not be used to challenge the validity or correctness of the assessment before the criminal court. The statute provided a complete machinery for assessment, appeal and revision, so the assessee had to pursue those remedies rather than mount a collateral attack in a prosecution under section 15(b). The Magistrate&#039;s role was limited to verifying that tax had been assessed under the Act, notice of demand had been served, and the amount remained unpaid within time; the court had no jurisdiction to reassess turnover or re-open the quantum. On that basis, the acquittals were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>