<?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>1988 (6) TMI 307 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155258</link>
    <description>Penalty proceedings under section 14(4) were treated as ancillary to reopening and reassessment, not as wholly independent proceedings. Because the penalty order was passed more than four years after service of the original assessment order, the limitation in section 14(4-A) applied. The court therefore held that the levy of penalty was time-barred under section 14(4-A), as the period governing reassessment also controlled the connected penalty action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 17:18:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (6) TMI 307 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155258</link>
      <description>Penalty proceedings under section 14(4) were treated as ancillary to reopening and reassessment, not as wholly independent proceedings. Because the penalty order was passed more than four years after service of the original assessment order, the limitation in section 14(4-A) applied. The court therefore held that the levy of penalty was time-barred under section 14(4-A), as the period governing reassessment also controlled the connected penalty action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>