<?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>2014 (9) TMI 1116 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193909</link>
    <description>Where an appellate order remands specific issues for fresh verification and does not finally determine the disputed turnover on merits, the assessing authority&#039;s subsequent order remains open to lawful suo motu revision for jurisdictional or apparent irregularities. The revisional authority was found competent to revise the effectual order after remand when concessional rate and exemption claims had been irregularly allowed, especially as the assessee did not file objections or supporting material despite opportunity. The challenge based on lack of jurisdiction and limitation was rejected, and the availability of an alternate appellate remedy also weighed against interference. The revision and consequential demand were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:41:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1116 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193909</link>
      <description>Where an appellate order remands specific issues for fresh verification and does not finally determine the disputed turnover on merits, the assessing authority&#039;s subsequent order remains open to lawful suo motu revision for jurisdictional or apparent irregularities. The revisional authority was found competent to revise the effectual order after remand when concessional rate and exemption claims had been irregularly allowed, especially as the assessee did not file objections or supporting material despite opportunity. The challenge based on lack of jurisdiction and limitation was rejected, and the availability of an alternate appellate remedy also weighed against interference. The revision and consequential demand were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>