<?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 (11) TMI 611 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163707</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petition of a private limited company seeking a stay of tax demand under Article 226. The company claimed exemption under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 2001-02, which was challenged through reassessment. Despite arguments on jurisdiction and natural justice, the court upheld the dismissal of the stay application by respondent No. 3. Emphasizing the discretionary power in tax recovery matters, the court highlighted the careful approach required in granting stay orders. The petitioner was advised to seek a refund if successful in the appeal, emphasizing the need for caution in tax-related stay orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:59:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 611 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163707</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petition of a private limited company seeking a stay of tax demand under Article 226. The company claimed exemption under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 2001-02, which was challenged through reassessment. Despite arguments on jurisdiction and natural justice, the court upheld the dismissal of the stay application by respondent No. 3. Emphasizing the discretionary power in tax recovery matters, the court highlighted the careful approach required in granting stay orders. The petitioner was advised to seek a refund if successful in the appeal, emphasizing the need for caution in tax-related stay orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>