https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297820 Interest under Section 22(2) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act was treated as automatic, and the Act itself did not require prior notice before liability arose. However, Rule 24(4) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Rules provided a procedural opportunity, and that safeguard had to be followed. Where the rules grant a wider hearing than the parent Act, compliance with the rule is necessary to meet natural justice requirements. The demand was therefore unsustainable without following Rule 24(4), and the dealer was entitled to treat it as a show-cause notice and respond before fresh orders were passed. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:04:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297820 Interest under Section 22(2) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act was treated as automatic, and the Act itself did not require prior notice before liability arose. However, Rule 24(4) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Rules provided a procedural opportunity, and that safeguard had to be followed. Where the rules grant a wider hearing than the parent Act, compliance with the rule is necessary to meet natural justice requirements. The demand was therefore unsustainable without following Rule 24(4), and the dealer was entitled to treat it as a show-cause notice and respond before fresh orders were passed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297820