<?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>2018 (6) TMI 1064 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362237</link>
    <description>Under the Andhra Pradesh VAT scheme, default in payment of deferred tax instalments causes the deferment benefit to become infructuous and restores the unpaid amount to the character of statutory dues, making interest recoverable under the Act&#039;s recovery machinery. The article also explains that treating the deferred amount as a loan does not prevent recovery once default occurs, because the statutory deeming fiction falls away and liability to interest under the Act remains. It further states that a prior mortgage in favour of a bank does not by itself bar attachment of the property, since attachment is distinct from priority in distribution under secured creditor rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:55:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1064 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362237</link>
      <description>Under the Andhra Pradesh VAT scheme, default in payment of deferred tax instalments causes the deferment benefit to become infructuous and restores the unpaid amount to the character of statutory dues, making interest recoverable under the Act&#039;s recovery machinery. The article also explains that treating the deferred amount as a loan does not prevent recovery once default occurs, because the statutory deeming fiction falls away and liability to interest under the Act remains. It further states that a prior mortgage in favour of a bank does not by itself bar attachment of the property, since attachment is distinct from priority in distribution under secured creditor rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>