<?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>1975 (3) TMI 128 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151204</link>
    <description>A monthly Central Sales Tax return filed without proof of payment of the admitted tax was treated as an incomplete return, because the rule required such proof as part of the return itself. On that basis, the assessing authority could invoke best judgment provisional assessment for incompleteness. However, the authority had to first give the dealer an opportunity to show the correctness and completeness of the return before determining turnover to the best of its judgment. As no prior opportunity was given, the demand notice was invalid and the provisional demand was quashed, leaving the authority free to proceed afresh in accordance with law after hearing the dealer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:53:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 128 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151204</link>
      <description>A monthly Central Sales Tax return filed without proof of payment of the admitted tax was treated as an incomplete return, because the rule required such proof as part of the return itself. On that basis, the assessing authority could invoke best judgment provisional assessment for incompleteness. However, the authority had to first give the dealer an opportunity to show the correctness and completeness of the return before determining turnover to the best of its judgment. As no prior opportunity was given, the demand notice was invalid and the provisional demand was quashed, leaving the authority free to proceed afresh in accordance with law after hearing the dealer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>