<?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>2002 (8) TMI 819 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161494</link>
    <description>An amendment limiting condonation of delay under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was upheld because it did not abolish the substantive right of appeal; it only curtailed the appellate authority&#039;s procedural discretion to condone delay to the prescribed periods. The Court held that this restriction was not shown to create hostile classification or violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), so the constitutional challenge failed. It further held that the amended limitation rule applied to appeals filed and considered after the amendment came into force, even where the underlying assessment orders were passed earlier. The petitioners were therefore not entitled to the earlier unlimited power of condonation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:40:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 819 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161494</link>
      <description>An amendment limiting condonation of delay under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was upheld because it did not abolish the substantive right of appeal; it only curtailed the appellate authority&#039;s procedural discretion to condone delay to the prescribed periods. The Court held that this restriction was not shown to create hostile classification or violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), so the constitutional challenge failed. It further held that the amended limitation rule applied to appeals filed and considered after the amendment came into force, even where the underlying assessment orders were passed earlier. The petitioners were therefore not entitled to the earlier unlimited power of condonation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>