<?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>1998 (7) TMI 669 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159953</link>
    <description>A notice proposing tax and compounding action was not treated as an illegal demand notice because it only invited objections to the proposed levy, and the assessee&#039;s managing partner later accepted the proposal voluntarily. The absence of a prior assessment order therefore did not invalidate the notice. On the offence classification, inspection materials showed suppression of turnover and an attempt to evade tax on unrecorded sales, which was treated as tax evasion rather than a mere accounting irregularity. The conduct was held to fall within the provision for failure to pay or evade recoverable tax, not the residual offence provision, and the compounding amount based on double the tax recoverable was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:24:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 669 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159953</link>
      <description>A notice proposing tax and compounding action was not treated as an illegal demand notice because it only invited objections to the proposed levy, and the assessee&#039;s managing partner later accepted the proposal voluntarily. The absence of a prior assessment order therefore did not invalidate the notice. On the offence classification, inspection materials showed suppression of turnover and an attempt to evade tax on unrecorded sales, which was treated as tax evasion rather than a mere accounting irregularity. The conduct was held to fall within the provision for failure to pay or evade recoverable tax, not the residual offence provision, and the compounding amount based on double the tax recoverable was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>