<?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>1983 (4) TMI 243 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154194</link>
    <description>Statutory &quot;local limits&quot; for assessment officers were construed as territorial areas smaller than the whole State, so a notification conferring State-wide jurisdiction on Intelligence officers was beyond power and assessments made under it were without jurisdiction. The concurrent vesting of assessment powers in multiple officers, without clear guidelines and without a comparable appellate remedy for dealers assessed by Intelligence officers, was treated as arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. A later retrospective deeming amendment could not validate actions taken before lawful authority existed. Provisional assessment, garnishee action, penalty notice, and compounding fee collection in the individual matters were therefore held illegal and unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:03:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 243 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154194</link>
      <description>Statutory &quot;local limits&quot; for assessment officers were construed as territorial areas smaller than the whole State, so a notification conferring State-wide jurisdiction on Intelligence officers was beyond power and assessments made under it were without jurisdiction. The concurrent vesting of assessment powers in multiple officers, without clear guidelines and without a comparable appellate remedy for dealers assessed by Intelligence officers, was treated as arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. A later retrospective deeming amendment could not validate actions taken before lawful authority existed. Provisional assessment, garnishee action, penalty notice, and compounding fee collection in the individual matters were therefore held illegal and unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>