<?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>2020 (4) TMI 638 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394731</link>
    <description>The High Court held that coercive recovery actions for disputed tax and penalty should not be initiated during the pendency of appeals and stay applications. The garnishee notice issued prematurely was quashed, allowing authorities to take action only after the stay orders or stay application decisions. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and pending Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 638 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394731</link>
      <description>The High Court held that coercive recovery actions for disputed tax and penalty should not be initiated during the pendency of appeals and stay applications. The garnishee notice issued prematurely was quashed, allowing authorities to take action only after the stay orders or stay application decisions. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and pending Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>