https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128351 Rule 27-A(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, and the related refund provision were held to operate prospectively only, because retrospective effect was not expressed in clear words or by necessary implication. The dealer was therefore not entitled to refund relief for transactions completed before commencement. The Court also upheld the higher sales tax rate on coconuts, finding that differential treatment of declared goods within a fiscal classification was supported by an intelligible basis linked to revenue policy and did not violate Article 14. The revision failed in substance. en-us Fri, 29 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:26:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128351 Rule 27-A(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, and the related refund provision were held to operate prospectively only, because retrospective effect was not expressed in clear words or by necessary implication. The dealer was therefore not entitled to refund relief for transactions completed before commencement. The Court also upheld the higher sales tax rate on coconuts, finding that differential treatment of declared goods within a fiscal classification was supported by an intelligible basis linked to revenue policy and did not violate Article 14. The revision failed in substance. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 29 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128351