<?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 (7) TMI 1266 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161034</link>
    <description>An overdraft bank account was treated as property for provisional attachment purposes because the term includes money and other interests with exchangeable value, and funds standing to the credit of the account form part of the assessee&#039;s property. The court also held that provisional attachment under section 17-B is an extraordinary, last-resort measure, to be used only on relevant material, with prior approval, during pending assessment proceedings, and only where necessary to protect revenue. On the facts, the bank attachment was premature and disproportionate, so it was quashed, while the assessee was required to furnish immovable property security instead.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:52:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1266 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161034</link>
      <description>An overdraft bank account was treated as property for provisional attachment purposes because the term includes money and other interests with exchangeable value, and funds standing to the credit of the account form part of the assessee&#039;s property. The court also held that provisional attachment under section 17-B is an extraordinary, last-resort measure, to be used only on relevant material, with prior approval, during pending assessment proceedings, and only where necessary to protect revenue. On the facts, the bank attachment was premature and disproportionate, so it was quashed, while the assessee was required to furnish immovable property security instead.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>