<?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>1980 (11) TMI 147 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153313</link>
    <description>Sales tax collected by a liquor dealer from purchasers, whether shown separately in the bill or credited to a suspense account, was treated as part of the sale consideration and therefore includible in turnover under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The Court applied the broad statutory meaning of turnover and held that, absent any provision authorising the dealer to collect the amount as a separate statutory payment outside turnover, the sum retained its character as part of the price. The constitutional challenge also failed: the levy remained a tax on turnover within State competence, and the fact that the burden was passed on to buyers did not make it invalid or infringe the right to carry on business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:45:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (11) TMI 147 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153313</link>
      <description>Sales tax collected by a liquor dealer from purchasers, whether shown separately in the bill or credited to a suspense account, was treated as part of the sale consideration and therefore includible in turnover under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The Court applied the broad statutory meaning of turnover and held that, absent any provision authorising the dealer to collect the amount as a separate statutory payment outside turnover, the sum retained its character as part of the price. The constitutional challenge also failed: the levy remained a tax on turnover within State competence, and the fact that the burden was passed on to buyers did not make it invalid or infringe the right to carry on business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>