https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314210 The AP HC held that while Article 226 jurisdiction is wide, it should be exercised with restraint and cannot entertain challenges to assessment orders where statutory appeals are filed beyond the condonable limitation period, following SC precedent in Glaxo Smith Kline case. However, the court found gross violation of natural justice as pre-assessment notices were not served per statutory procedure under Rule 64 of AP VAT Rules. The appellate authorities failed to consider proper service requirements. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration within three months, with garnishee notice set aside subject to petitioner maintaining disputed tax amount in bank account. en-us Fri, 12 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2024 20:07:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314210 The AP HC held that while Article 226 jurisdiction is wide, it should be exercised with restraint and cannot entertain challenges to assessment orders where statutory appeals are filed beyond the condonable limitation period, following SC precedent in Glaxo Smith Kline case. However, the court found gross violation of natural justice as pre-assessment notices were not served per statutory procedure under Rule 64 of AP VAT Rules. The appellate authorities failed to consider proper service requirements. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration within three months, with garnishee notice set aside subject to petitioner maintaining disputed tax amount in bank account. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 12 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314210