<?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>1967 (4) TMI 178 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144170</link>
    <description>Item 6 of Schedule III to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was construed as imposing a single-point levy on groundnuts purchased by a miller. Because groundnuts were declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the levy had to operate within article 286(3) of the Constitution and section 15 of that Act. Reading the entry as a whole, the phrase &quot;when purchased by a miller&quot; was held to refer to the first miller purchasing the goods in the State, regardless of whether that miller later crushed them into oil or resold them. The competing view, limiting tax to the final crushing miller, was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:08:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166168" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 178 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144170</link>
      <description>Item 6 of Schedule III to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was construed as imposing a single-point levy on groundnuts purchased by a miller. Because groundnuts were declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the levy had to operate within article 286(3) of the Constitution and section 15 of that Act. Reading the entry as a whole, the phrase &quot;when purchased by a miller&quot; was held to refer to the first miller purchasing the goods in the State, regardless of whether that miller later crushed them into oil or resold them. The competing view, limiting tax to the final crushing miller, was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>