<?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 (2) TMI 527 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161125</link>
    <description>Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 required the assessing authority, before making a best judgment assessment on an apparently incorrect or incomplete return, to give the dealer a reasonable opportunity to prove its correctness and completeness. Where that mandatory opportunity was not afforded, the provisional assessment was vitiated for breach of natural justice and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure. The availability of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ relief under Article 226 because the defect went to the legality of the assessment process itself. The provisional assessment order was therefore quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:27:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 527 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161125</link>
      <description>Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 required the assessing authority, before making a best judgment assessment on an apparently incorrect or incomplete return, to give the dealer a reasonable opportunity to prove its correctness and completeness. Where that mandatory opportunity was not afforded, the provisional assessment was vitiated for breach of natural justice and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure. The availability of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ relief under Article 226 because the defect went to the legality of the assessment process itself. The provisional assessment order was therefore quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>