<?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>2009 (4) TMI 854 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164015</link>
    <description>Section 20(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 bars revision only when the very same issue or question is already pending before the Tribunal. The phrase is wide, but the restraint depends on whether the matter is factual or a pure question of law; a fact-specific controversy for a particular assessment year does not necessarily attract the bar. On the stated facts, freight, purchase price and delivery terms were treated as factual issues, so the revisional authority was not without jurisdiction. The writ petition also failed because an effective statutory appeal under section 21 was available and no exception to writ jurisdiction was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 854 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164015</link>
      <description>Section 20(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 bars revision only when the very same issue or question is already pending before the Tribunal. The phrase is wide, but the restraint depends on whether the matter is factual or a pure question of law; a fact-specific controversy for a particular assessment year does not necessarily attract the bar. On the stated facts, freight, purchase price and delivery terms were treated as factual issues, so the revisional authority was not without jurisdiction. The writ petition also failed because an effective statutory appeal under section 21 was available and no exception to writ jurisdiction was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164015</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>