<?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>2006 (3) TMI 709 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162845</link>
    <description>The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered whether recovery of sales tax arrears could continue against a sick industrial company during proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It held that the protective suspension under section 22(1) covers only the specified proceedings contemplated by the statute and does not automatically bar recovery of sales tax dues belonging to the State, especially where the dues are not shown to be part of a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme and the company continued collecting the tax from customers. On the facts, there was no material that the liability was included in any approved scheme, so the recovery proceedings were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:05:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 709 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162845</link>
      <description>The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered whether recovery of sales tax arrears could continue against a sick industrial company during proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It held that the protective suspension under section 22(1) covers only the specified proceedings contemplated by the statute and does not automatically bar recovery of sales tax dues belonging to the State, especially where the dues are not shown to be part of a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme and the company continued collecting the tax from customers. On the facts, there was no material that the liability was included in any approved scheme, so the recovery proceedings were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>