<?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 (10) TMI 33 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127869</link>
    <description>Groundnut was construed broadly to include kernel, so purchase tax on groundnut kernel was upheld. Sales completed in one State but delivered in Andhra Pradesh remained taxable because the Article 286 Explanation, as restored by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, applied where delivery formed part of the sale, regardless of where title passed. The Madras General Sales Tax Act and Rules validly authorised tax at the purchase point by treating specified purchased goods as turnover. Withdrawal of rebate on refined oil was also sustained because refined oil was treated as a different commodity from groundnut, and the classification between crude and refined oil had a rational basis, so Article 14 was not offended.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (10) TMI 33 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127869</link>
      <description>Groundnut was construed broadly to include kernel, so purchase tax on groundnut kernel was upheld. Sales completed in one State but delivered in Andhra Pradesh remained taxable because the Article 286 Explanation, as restored by the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, applied where delivery formed part of the sale, regardless of where title passed. The Madras General Sales Tax Act and Rules validly authorised tax at the purchase point by treating specified purchased goods as turnover. Withdrawal of rebate on refined oil was also sustained because refined oil was treated as a different commodity from groundnut, and the classification between crude and refined oil had a rational basis, so Article 14 was not offended.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>