<?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>1958 (4) TMI 100 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127742</link>
    <description>Exemption from sales tax had to be proved by the taxpayer claiming it, and the petitioners bore the burden of showing that the hides and skins were purchased from unlicensed dealers. The court rejected any presumption that dealers in hides and skins were unlicensed, and accepted the Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that the petitioners failed to establish the necessary basis for exemption. On that footing, the claimed exemption was denied and the assessment was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:01:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (4) TMI 100 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127742</link>
      <description>Exemption from sales tax had to be proved by the taxpayer claiming it, and the petitioners bore the burden of showing that the hides and skins were purchased from unlicensed dealers. The court rejected any presumption that dealers in hides and skins were unlicensed, and accepted the Tribunal&#039;s factual finding that the petitioners failed to establish the necessary basis for exemption. On that footing, the claimed exemption was denied and the assessment was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>