<?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 (3) TMI 418 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155316</link>
    <description>Section 14(4)(cc) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act could not be used to reopen assessments that had already become final before the clause was inserted, because an enlargement of reopening power is not retrospective without express words or necessary intendment. The reassessment also failed because the original assessment did not grant any statutory deduction or exemption; it accepted the assessee&#039;s contention that the supplies were not sales at all. A transaction treated as outside the charging provision is not the same as a wrongly allowed exemption or deduction, so the statutory precondition for section 14(4)(cc) was absent. The reassessment orders were therefore without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:49:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 418 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155316</link>
      <description>Section 14(4)(cc) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act could not be used to reopen assessments that had already become final before the clause was inserted, because an enlargement of reopening power is not retrospective without express words or necessary intendment. The reassessment also failed because the original assessment did not grant any statutory deduction or exemption; it accepted the assessee&#039;s contention that the supplies were not sales at all. A transaction treated as outside the charging provision is not the same as a wrongly allowed exemption or deduction, so the statutory precondition for section 14(4)(cc) was absent. The reassessment orders were therefore without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>