<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1191 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212092</link>
    <description>Where an assessment order under the VAT Act is appealable and the assessee allows the statutory limitation for appeal to expire, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to bypass the alternative remedy, and the petition was rejected on that ground. The Court also found no substantiated denial of personal hearing or breach of natural justice: notice was issued, objections were filed, books were produced, and a hearing was held on the disputed turnovers. The plea of procedural unfairness was treated as an afterthought, and no grave illegality or error apparent on the face of the record was shown to justify certiorari. The assessment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2014 13:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1191 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212092</link>
      <description>Where an assessment order under the VAT Act is appealable and the assessee allows the statutory limitation for appeal to expire, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to bypass the alternative remedy, and the petition was rejected on that ground. The Court also found no substantiated denial of personal hearing or breach of natural justice: notice was issued, objections were filed, books were produced, and a hearing was held on the disputed turnovers. The plea of procedural unfairness was treated as an afterthought, and no grave illegality or error apparent on the face of the record was shown to justify certiorari. The assessment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>