<?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>1996 (6) TMI 331 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158960</link>
    <description>Limitation for revision under section 20(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is governed by the date the revisional order is passed, not the later date of service, unless abnormal unexplained delay in service justifies a presumption that the order was not made on its recorded date. On the facts, the revisional order was passed within the four-year period and no material supported such a presumption, so the challenge based on limitation failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:59:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 331 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158960</link>
      <description>Limitation for revision under section 20(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is governed by the date the revisional order is passed, not the later date of service, unless abnormal unexplained delay in service justifies a presumption that the order was not made on its recorded date. On the facts, the revisional order was passed within the four-year period and no material supported such a presumption, so the challenge based on limitation failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>