<?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>1978 (3) TMI 206 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152600</link>
    <description>Section 6-A(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was treated as an anti-evasion provision covering purchases of taxable goods from non-registered dealers where the goods were consumed in manufacture, otherwise disposed of, or despatched outside the State; on the facts stated, the purchase turnover fell within that provision. The text also states that turnover already liable under section 6-A could still attract the additional levy under section 5-A, because the levy under sections 5 and 5-A was treated as part of the same tax scheme and did not change the character of the charge. The challenge to the purchase tax provisions therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:34:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (3) TMI 206 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152600</link>
      <description>Section 6-A(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was treated as an anti-evasion provision covering purchases of taxable goods from non-registered dealers where the goods were consumed in manufacture, otherwise disposed of, or despatched outside the State; on the facts stated, the purchase turnover fell within that provision. The text also states that turnover already liable under section 6-A could still attract the additional levy under section 5-A, because the levy under sections 5 and 5-A was treated as part of the same tax scheme and did not change the character of the charge. The challenge to the purchase tax provisions therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>