<?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 (8) TMI 651 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163416</link>
    <description>A revision under section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 was held maintainable against an assessment order even though an appeal was available under section 15(1). The statute was read as creating distinct appellate and revisional remedies, and the taxpayer was entitled to elect either route. The revisional authority could not refuse to examine the revision merely because an alternative remedy existed; it was required to consider the matter on merits, including regularity, correctness, legality, and propriety of the assessment proceedings. The order declining to entertain the revision was therefore set aside and the revision was directed to be decided afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:04:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 651 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163416</link>
      <description>A revision under section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 was held maintainable against an assessment order even though an appeal was available under section 15(1). The statute was read as creating distinct appellate and revisional remedies, and the taxpayer was entitled to elect either route. The revisional authority could not refuse to examine the revision merely because an alternative remedy existed; it was required to consider the matter on merits, including regularity, correctness, legality, and propriety of the assessment proceedings. The order declining to entertain the revision was therefore set aside and the revision was directed to be decided afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163416</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>