<?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>1994 (4) TMI 359 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157386</link>
    <description>A Deputy Commissioner holding full additional charge of the post of Joint Commissioner was competent to exercise the revisional power under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Section 4 empowered the State Government to appoint officers to perform functions under the Act, and section 20 vested revisional jurisdiction in the Joint Commissioner. Once the officer was placed in full additional charge of that office, she could validly exercise its statutory powers, and her competence did not depend on a later Government clarification. The revisional order was therefore not vitiated on that ground, and the challenge to its validity failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 17:11:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 359 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157386</link>
      <description>A Deputy Commissioner holding full additional charge of the post of Joint Commissioner was competent to exercise the revisional power under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Section 4 empowered the State Government to appoint officers to perform functions under the Act, and section 20 vested revisional jurisdiction in the Joint Commissioner. Once the officer was placed in full additional charge of that office, she could validly exercise its statutory powers, and her competence did not depend on a later Government clarification. The revisional order was therefore not vitiated on that ground, and the challenge to its validity failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>