<?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 (11) TMI 1005 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162352</link>
    <description>Subordinate legislation cannot retrospectively withdraw an accrued tax concession or benefit already granted under an earlier Government Order; any withdrawal may operate only prospectively. The court therefore treated the later Government Order&#039;s retrospective supersession as ineffective to deprive the assessee of the benefit for the interregnum period. The assessee remained entitled to the concession for the relevant period, and the tax liability was required to be reassessed on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:09:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 1005 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162352</link>
      <description>Subordinate legislation cannot retrospectively withdraw an accrued tax concession or benefit already granted under an earlier Government Order; any withdrawal may operate only prospectively. The court therefore treated the later Government Order&#039;s retrospective supersession as ineffective to deprive the assessee of the benefit for the interregnum period. The assessee remained entitled to the concession for the relevant period, and the tax liability was required to be reassessed on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>