<?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 (10) TMI 523 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162769</link>
    <description>Administrative instructions issued by the Commissioner, not under the statutory circular-making power, do not bind quasi-judicial assessing authorities and cannot sustain cancellation of concessional tax benefits or penalty orders. Orders passed on that basis were therefore unsustainable. The assessing authority also failed to consider objections on the applicability of the notification, the scope of the second proviso, and whether action against sellers was authorised at all. Because those legal and factual objections required independent examination, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh adjudication after notice and hearing, leaving the underlying tax liability questions open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:55:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 523 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162769</link>
      <description>Administrative instructions issued by the Commissioner, not under the statutory circular-making power, do not bind quasi-judicial assessing authorities and cannot sustain cancellation of concessional tax benefits or penalty orders. Orders passed on that basis were therefore unsustainable. The assessing authority also failed to consider objections on the applicability of the notification, the scope of the second proviso, and whether action against sellers was authorised at all. Because those legal and factual objections required independent examination, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh adjudication after notice and hearing, leaving the underlying tax liability questions open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>