<?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>1975 (2) TMI 93 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150784</link>
    <description>Revisional jurisdiction restoring the original sales tax assessment after setting aside appellate relief was treated as a valid revision, not a reassessment or fresh assessment, because the revisional authority made no new turnover determination. The commentary also notes that deductions under section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act were treated as corresponding to the earlier rule-based deduction framework, so entitlement to deduction remained a factual matter for the assessing authority. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s direction for redetermination was not seen as requiring interference in revision, and no remand was warranted on the facts discussed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 16:40:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (2) TMI 93 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150784</link>
      <description>Revisional jurisdiction restoring the original sales tax assessment after setting aside appellate relief was treated as a valid revision, not a reassessment or fresh assessment, because the revisional authority made no new turnover determination. The commentary also notes that deductions under section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act were treated as corresponding to the earlier rule-based deduction framework, so entitlement to deduction remained a factual matter for the assessing authority. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s direction for redetermination was not seen as requiring interference in revision, and no remand was warranted on the facts discussed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>