<?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 (1) TMI 264 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157994</link>
    <description>Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, read with rule 28, permits additional security to safeguard tax realisation and the proper custody and use of forms. At the show cause stage, the notice need only indicate the basis for proposing additional security; it is not necessary then to establish the sufficiency or final legality of the reasons. The requirement to give the dealer an opportunity of being heard and to record reasons arises before the final order is made. A reference to increased business volume was treated as relevant to the statutory purpose, so the notices were not arbitrary or vague and were not liable to be challenged at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:42:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=328128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 264 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157994</link>
      <description>Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, read with rule 28, permits additional security to safeguard tax realisation and the proper custody and use of forms. At the show cause stage, the notice need only indicate the basis for proposing additional security; it is not necessary then to establish the sufficiency or final legality of the reasons. The requirement to give the dealer an opportunity of being heard and to record reasons arises before the final order is made. A reference to increased business volume was treated as relevant to the statutory purpose, so the notices were not arbitrary or vague and were not liable to be challenged at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>