<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1691 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274268</link>
    <description>The Commercial Taxes authorities could not sustain fresh proceedings that used the same objection earlier rejected by the Tribunal, because the petitioner&#039;s claim had already been directed to be reconsidered under the applicable regularisation policy. Reiterating the later Government order showed non-application of mind and disregard of the earlier remand direction. The department&#039;s stand was also inconsistent, as it denied the existence of the post while relying on regularisation of similarly placed employees. On these facts, the impugned proceedings and the Tribunal&#039;s dismissal order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the earlier direction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2018 08:25:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1691 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274268</link>
      <description>The Commercial Taxes authorities could not sustain fresh proceedings that used the same objection earlier rejected by the Tribunal, because the petitioner&#039;s claim had already been directed to be reconsidered under the applicable regularisation policy. Reiterating the later Government order showed non-application of mind and disregard of the earlier remand direction. The department&#039;s stand was also inconsistent, as it denied the existence of the post while relying on regularisation of similarly placed employees. On these facts, the impugned proceedings and the Tribunal&#039;s dismissal order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the earlier direction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>