<?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>1965 (7) TMI 53 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=141071</link>
    <description>Withdrawal of the rebate for refined groundnut oil was treated as constitutionally valid because refined, raw and hydrogenated oils differ in manufacturing process, market treatment, price and demand. The classification had a rational nexus with the concession&#039;s object, and no hostile discrimination under Article 14 was established. Inter-State sale status depends on whether the contract itself occasions movement of goods across State borders, rather than whether sale completion follows delivery within the State. The intra-State classification was therefore unsustainable and required reconsideration of the contractual terms by the appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:52:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (7) TMI 53 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=141071</link>
      <description>Withdrawal of the rebate for refined groundnut oil was treated as constitutionally valid because refined, raw and hydrogenated oils differ in manufacturing process, market treatment, price and demand. The classification had a rational nexus with the concession&#039;s object, and no hostile discrimination under Article 14 was established. Inter-State sale status depends on whether the contract itself occasions movement of goods across State borders, rather than whether sale completion follows delivery within the State. The intra-State classification was therefore unsustainable and required reconsideration of the contractual terms by the appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=141071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>