<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1042 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167899</link>
    <description>The revisional power under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 had to be exercised within the period prescribed by section 20(3). Because the assessment order was served on 5 November 2002, the revisional order was required to be passed within four years from that date. Although the order bore the date 31 August 2006, it was communicated only on 20 July 2007, with no explanation for the long intervening delay. The unexplained and inordinate delay in service supported the presumption that the order was not actually made on the date shown and had been passed after limitation. The revisional order was therefore held to be barred by limitation and unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1042 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167899</link>
      <description>The revisional power under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 had to be exercised within the period prescribed by section 20(3). Because the assessment order was served on 5 November 2002, the revisional order was required to be passed within four years from that date. Although the order bore the date 31 August 2006, it was communicated only on 20 July 2007, with no explanation for the long intervening delay. The unexplained and inordinate delay in service supported the presumption that the order was not actually made on the date shown and had been passed after limitation. The revisional order was therefore held to be barred by limitation and unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>