<?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>2001 (6) TMI 792 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160411</link>
    <description>Commercial tax authorities could not demand or recover tax from the petitioner while a final eligibility certificate issued by the competent industrial authority remained in force. The certificate had to be treated as operative until cancelled or modified by the authority competent to do so, and the tax authorities were not entitled to ignore or nullify it on their own. If they had material suggesting earlier commencement of production than stated in the certificate, the proper course was to place that material before the issuing authority for appropriate action. In the absence of such cancellation or modification, coercive recovery was impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:44:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 792 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160411</link>
      <description>Commercial tax authorities could not demand or recover tax from the petitioner while a final eligibility certificate issued by the competent industrial authority remained in force. The certificate had to be treated as operative until cancelled or modified by the authority competent to do so, and the tax authorities were not entitled to ignore or nullify it on their own. If they had material suggesting earlier commencement of production than stated in the certificate, the proper course was to place that material before the issuing authority for appropriate action. In the absence of such cancellation or modification, coercive recovery was impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>