<?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>2015 (2) TMI 1151 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181010</link>
    <description>A compounded offence under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was treated as final once the prescribed fee was collected, because section 32(2) gave finality to orders or proceedings under section 32(1) and barred appeal or revision. In the absence of any enabling provision for review or reopening, the authority could not revisit the compounding or enhance the composition amount at a later stage under section 32(1)(a). The long delay between inspection and initiation of further proceedings also weighed against reopening. The reopening and enhancement were therefore held to be without jurisdiction and invalid, with the challenge succeeding for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:01:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1151 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181010</link>
      <description>A compounded offence under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was treated as final once the prescribed fee was collected, because section 32(2) gave finality to orders or proceedings under section 32(1) and barred appeal or revision. In the absence of any enabling provision for review or reopening, the authority could not revisit the compounding or enhance the composition amount at a later stage under section 32(1)(a). The long delay between inspection and initiation of further proceedings also weighed against reopening. The reopening and enhancement were therefore held to be without jurisdiction and invalid, with the challenge succeeding for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>