<?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>1981 (12) TMI 142 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153184</link>
    <description>Section 14(4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act requires reassessment or levy under section 14(4) within four years from service of the assessment order, and section 14(7) excludes only the period needed to complete a fresh assessment on the turnover actually set aside. A notice issued within time for escaped turnover could continue after exclusion of the set-aside period, but a new additional turnover not covered by any section 14(4) notice within the limitation period could not be introduced after expiry. The remand order did not enlarge the scope of the proceeding. The notice was therefore barred and without jurisdiction only for the newly added turnover, while it remained valid for the turnover already validly noticed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:51:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (12) TMI 142 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153184</link>
      <description>Section 14(4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act requires reassessment or levy under section 14(4) within four years from service of the assessment order, and section 14(7) excludes only the period needed to complete a fresh assessment on the turnover actually set aside. A notice issued within time for escaped turnover could continue after exclusion of the set-aside period, but a new additional turnover not covered by any section 14(4) notice within the limitation period could not be introduced after expiry. The remand order did not enlarge the scope of the proceeding. The notice was therefore barred and without jurisdiction only for the newly added turnover, while it remained valid for the turnover already validly noticed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>