<?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>1960 (2) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128116</link>
    <description>Tax liability under a fiscal enactment arises from the charging provision and survives repeal where a saving clause or general saving principle preserves accrued obligations. The repeal of the Hyderabad Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Regulation did not extinguish tax already incurred for the earlier period, so the challenge to liability failed. Where the dealer failed to file the statutory monthly returns, the authority was still entitled to require returns and proceed with assessment by best judgment because the assessee cannot defeat the fiscal scheme by withholding the return on which it depends. The notices were therefore upheld against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:24:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (2) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128116</link>
      <description>Tax liability under a fiscal enactment arises from the charging provision and survives repeal where a saving clause or general saving principle preserves accrued obligations. The repeal of the Hyderabad Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Regulation did not extinguish tax already incurred for the earlier period, so the challenge to liability failed. Where the dealer failed to file the statutory monthly returns, the authority was still entitled to require returns and proceed with assessment by best judgment because the assessee cannot defeat the fiscal scheme by withholding the return on which it depends. The notices were therefore upheld against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>