<?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 (9) TMI 614 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163467</link>
    <description>Acquisition proceedings under section 28A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act were found unsustainable because the competent authority had not properly ascertained the fair market price and had not satisfied the statutory conditions for invoking the power. The record showed fluctuating and unsupported estimates of stock value, and the authority had relied on different methods and values at different stages without establishing a proper factual basis under section 2(gg). Concurrent findings of the Tribunal, including the third Member, held that the statutory requirements for acquisition were not met, and the order setting aside the acquisition proceedings was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:45:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 614 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163467</link>
      <description>Acquisition proceedings under section 28A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act were found unsustainable because the competent authority had not properly ascertained the fair market price and had not satisfied the statutory conditions for invoking the power. The record showed fluctuating and unsupported estimates of stock value, and the authority had relied on different methods and values at different stages without establishing a proper factual basis under section 2(gg). Concurrent findings of the Tribunal, including the third Member, held that the statutory requirements for acquisition were not met, and the order setting aside the acquisition proceedings was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>