<?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>1998 (3) TMI 595 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104732</link>
    <description>Sales tax collections treated as part of turnover under sections 30-B and 30-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act were sought to be refunded in Article 226 proceedings, but the Court noted that section 30-C(1) contemplated forfeiture of amounts collected in excess of tax payable. Because the disputed sums had already been remitted to the State and the matter arose in writ jurisdiction, refund relief was declined and the broader referred question was not examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 595 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104732</link>
      <description>Sales tax collections treated as part of turnover under sections 30-B and 30-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act were sought to be refunded in Article 226 proceedings, but the Court noted that section 30-C(1) contemplated forfeiture of amounts collected in excess of tax payable. Because the disputed sums had already been remitted to the State and the matter arose in writ jurisdiction, refund relief was declined and the broader referred question was not examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>