<?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>2019 (5) TMI 802 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380074</link>
    <description>Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act requires a written demand identifying the defaulter, the arrear and the date due before seizure and sale of movable property. Where tax and penalty liabilities had already been provisionally determined, confirmed and served, the assessee could not rely on blanks in the Form-I notice or on a higher figure than an earlier arrears notice to claim invalidity. The provision is aimed at informing an unaware defaulter, not at repeating liabilities already adjudicated and known. The Form-I demand notice was therefore treated as valid and no irregularity was found in the recovery proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 07:53:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 802 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380074</link>
      <description>Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act requires a written demand identifying the defaulter, the arrear and the date due before seizure and sale of movable property. Where tax and penalty liabilities had already been provisionally determined, confirmed and served, the assessee could not rely on blanks in the Form-I notice or on a higher figure than an earlier arrears notice to claim invalidity. The provision is aimed at informing an unaware defaulter, not at repeating liabilities already adjudicated and known. The Form-I demand notice was therefore treated as valid and no irregularity was found in the recovery proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>