https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157950 An auction notice for recovery of misappropriated amounts was upheld where disciplinary proceedings had already fixed the liability and quantified the sum due. The court treated the notice as a proposed recovery step, not an independent adjudication, and rejected the claim that the amount remained unascertained. It also held that Section 17-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 empowered the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to exercise the powers of the Mandal Revenue Officer for sale of distrained property, so the jurisdiction challenge failed. Recovery under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, together with interest, was therefore permitted. en-us Fri, 18 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:09:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157950 An auction notice for recovery of misappropriated amounts was upheld where disciplinary proceedings had already fixed the liability and quantified the sum due. The court treated the notice as a proposed recovery step, not an independent adjudication, and rejected the claim that the amount remained unascertained. It also held that Section 17-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 empowered the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to exercise the powers of the Mandal Revenue Officer for sale of distrained property, so the jurisdiction challenge failed. Recovery under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, together with interest, was therefore permitted. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 18 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157950