<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1328 - High Court of Andhra Pradesh</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172086</link>
    <description>Section 32(5) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 permits deferment of assessment proceedings where a pending appeal or other proceeding raises a question of law directly bearing on the assessment. The rejection of deferment here was invalid because it rested only on a general concern to protect revenue, despite acceptance that the issue in the pending writ petition was the same as the issue in the proposed assessment. A statutory order must be judged by the reasons actually recorded in it, and discretion under Section 32(5) must be exercised in line with the statutory purpose and earlier judicial directions. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1328 - High Court of Andhra Pradesh</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172086</link>
      <description>Section 32(5) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 permits deferment of assessment proceedings where a pending appeal or other proceeding raises a question of law directly bearing on the assessment. The rejection of deferment here was invalid because it rested only on a general concern to protect revenue, despite acceptance that the issue in the pending writ petition was the same as the issue in the proposed assessment. A statutory order must be judged by the reasons actually recorded in it, and discretion under Section 32(5) must be exercised in line with the statutory purpose and earlier judicial directions. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>