<?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 797 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160468</link>
    <description>Tax liability could not be imposed on a person carrying old silver articles and cash on behalf of a registered dealer where the contemporaneous statement, the order book in the dealer&#039;s name, and the absence of evidence that the goods were new or that the cash was sale proceeds supported the petitioners&#039; explanation. The authority failed to establish any legal basis for treating the first petitioner as a seller or casual trader, and the on-the-spot levy was made without proper enquiry or fair opportunity. The notice, tax collection, and penalty recovery were treated as coercive, rendering the action illegal and without jurisdiction, with refund of the amounts collected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:51:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 797 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160468</link>
      <description>Tax liability could not be imposed on a person carrying old silver articles and cash on behalf of a registered dealer where the contemporaneous statement, the order book in the dealer&#039;s name, and the absence of evidence that the goods were new or that the cash was sale proceeds supported the petitioners&#039; explanation. The authority failed to establish any legal basis for treating the first petitioner as a seller or casual trader, and the on-the-spot levy was made without proper enquiry or fair opportunity. The notice, tax collection, and penalty recovery were treated as coercive, rendering the action illegal and without jurisdiction, with refund of the amounts collected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>