<?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>1956 (6) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148289</link>
    <description>The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was read as permitting the State to authorise a Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions) to assess cases involving suppressed or omitted turnover, because the definition of &quot;assessing authority&quot; and the power to assign local limits supported concurrent assessment jurisdiction. The notification selecting evasion cases was also upheld under Article 14, as it was confined to detected or reported suppression, provided adequate guidance, and left procedure and remedies unchanged from ordinary assessments. Section 5A, which applied a turnover-based classification, was likewise sustained as a valid distinction already accepted by the Court. The assessment machinery and constitutional challenges therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:05:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (6) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148289</link>
      <description>The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was read as permitting the State to authorise a Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions) to assess cases involving suppressed or omitted turnover, because the definition of &quot;assessing authority&quot; and the power to assign local limits supported concurrent assessment jurisdiction. The notification selecting evasion cases was also upheld under Article 14, as it was confined to detected or reported suppression, provided adequate guidance, and left procedure and remedies unchanged from ordinary assessments. Section 5A, which applied a turnover-based classification, was likewise sustained as a valid distinction already accepted by the Court. The assessment machinery and constitutional challenges therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>