<?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>1966 (12) TMI 54 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144164</link>
    <description>Copra was treated as included within the expression &quot;coconuts&quot; under the amended explanation to Item 5 of Schedule III of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, because the definition expressly covered fresh or dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled, and included copra while excluding tender coconuts. On that wording, dried coconuts in shelled form fell within the taxable commodity, and the last point of purchase in the State operated as the point of taxation. Once converted into oil, the commodity ceased to remain coconut. The petitioners&#039; authorities were distinguished for turning on different statutory language, and the levy on copra was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:08:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (12) TMI 54 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144164</link>
      <description>Copra was treated as included within the expression &quot;coconuts&quot; under the amended explanation to Item 5 of Schedule III of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, because the definition expressly covered fresh or dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled, and included copra while excluding tender coconuts. On that wording, dried coconuts in shelled form fell within the taxable commodity, and the last point of purchase in the State operated as the point of taxation. Once converted into oil, the commodity ceased to remain coconut. The petitioners&#039; authorities were distinguished for turning on different statutory language, and the levy on copra was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>