<?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>2008 (9) TMI 993 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196539</link>
    <description>Revenue recovery provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act and the State Financial Corporations Act apply only to amounts that remain legally recoverable when proceedings begin. A time-barred debt cannot be treated as an &quot;amount due&quot; for coercive recovery, so the Corporation could not invoke revenue recovery machinery to realise the barred claim. A creditor&#039;s demand notice will extend limitation only if it satisfies Section 18 of the Limitation Act and is properly proved as an acknowledgment of liability; the notice dated 05.10.1999 did not do so and therefore did not revive or extend limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:01:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 993 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196539</link>
      <description>Revenue recovery provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act and the State Financial Corporations Act apply only to amounts that remain legally recoverable when proceedings begin. A time-barred debt cannot be treated as an &quot;amount due&quot; for coercive recovery, so the Corporation could not invoke revenue recovery machinery to realise the barred claim. A creditor&#039;s demand notice will extend limitation only if it satisfies Section 18 of the Limitation Act and is properly proved as an acknowledgment of liability; the notice dated 05.10.1999 did not do so and therefore did not revive or extend limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>