<?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>2005 (4) TMI 556 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162287</link>
    <description>Reassessment show cause notices under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act were held unsustainable where the authority relied on information allegedly obtained from the manufacturer but did not supply that material to the dealers. The notices themselves recorded findings of suppression, rejection of books, presumed sales and proposed penalty, showing that a definite conclusion had already been formed rather than a genuine proposal seeking explanation. On that basis, the notices were treated as lacking a real and effective opportunity before reassessment and were liable to be quashed. The availability of an alternative remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the notices were challenged as without jurisdiction and issued on a predetermined basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Feb 2014 13:47:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 556 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162287</link>
      <description>Reassessment show cause notices under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act were held unsustainable where the authority relied on information allegedly obtained from the manufacturer but did not supply that material to the dealers. The notices themselves recorded findings of suppression, rejection of books, presumed sales and proposed penalty, showing that a definite conclusion had already been formed rather than a genuine proposal seeking explanation. On that basis, the notices were treated as lacking a real and effective opportunity before reassessment and were liable to be quashed. The availability of an alternative remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the notices were challenged as without jurisdiction and issued on a predetermined basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>