<?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>1956 (3) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127532</link>
    <description>Amounts collected by a commission agent from buyers as dharmam, valtar and katha cooly were treated as part of the sale consideration and therefore included in turnover under the amended sales tax definition, with retrospective effect. Because those sums were not disclosed in the turnover statements or passed on in the pattials, the dealer failed to satisfy the conditions attached to the licence and to exemption under section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, so the exemption was denied for the jaggery turnover. A separate addition for the value of 1059 bags of bran, found from a secret memorandum and omitted from the books, was upheld on factual findings that the goods were dealt with by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:26:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (3) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127532</link>
      <description>Amounts collected by a commission agent from buyers as dharmam, valtar and katha cooly were treated as part of the sale consideration and therefore included in turnover under the amended sales tax definition, with retrospective effect. Because those sums were not disclosed in the turnover statements or passed on in the pattials, the dealer failed to satisfy the conditions attached to the licence and to exemption under section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, so the exemption was denied for the jaggery turnover. A separate addition for the value of 1059 bags of bran, found from a secret memorandum and omitted from the books, was upheld on factual findings that the goods were dealt with by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>