<?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>1989 (2) TMI 391 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155926</link>
    <description>Additional evidence in appellate proceedings may be admitted only where the governing procedural conditions are satisfied. Regulation 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957, read with the principles analogous to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, permits receipt of such evidence only on proper grounds. In this matter, the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation for earlier non-filing of C forms under Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, and did not treat the documents as admissible as a matter of course. The court held that there was no violation of Regulation 11, so the challenge to admission of the additional evidence failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:14:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 391 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155926</link>
      <description>Additional evidence in appellate proceedings may be admitted only where the governing procedural conditions are satisfied. Regulation 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1957, read with the principles analogous to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, permits receipt of such evidence only on proper grounds. In this matter, the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation for earlier non-filing of C forms under Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, and did not treat the documents as admissible as a matter of course. The court held that there was no violation of Regulation 11, so the challenge to admission of the additional evidence failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>