<?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 (10) TMI 1006 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281904</link>
    <description>Timely pre-deposit of the stipulated percentage of disputed tax was treated as a condition precedent for admission of an appeal under the Andhra Pradesh VAT regime. Belated reassessment material and later certificates of excess input tax credit could not cure non-compliance because they arose after expiry of the statutory period. Binding precedent on the same pre-deposit requirement was followed, and a Supreme Court order made under Article 142 was held not to dilute that precedent for proceedings under Article 226. The writ challenge therefore could not override the statutory bar or equate equitable relief with the court&#039;s Article 142 powers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=578962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 1006 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281904</link>
      <description>Timely pre-deposit of the stipulated percentage of disputed tax was treated as a condition precedent for admission of an appeal under the Andhra Pradesh VAT regime. Belated reassessment material and later certificates of excess input tax credit could not cure non-compliance because they arose after expiry of the statutory period. Binding precedent on the same pre-deposit requirement was followed, and a Supreme Court order made under Article 142 was held not to dilute that precedent for proceedings under Article 226. The writ challenge therefore could not override the statutory bar or equate equitable relief with the court&#039;s Article 142 powers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>