<?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>1986 (1) TMI 360 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154426</link>
    <description>A validating constitutional amendment expanded &quot;sale of goods&quot; to include supply of food and drinks in hotels, restaurants and eating houses, curing the defect identified in earlier decisions and sustaining past sales tax levies, subject to statutory exemption. The Andhra Pradesh sales tax amendment was also upheld: the legislature&#039;s retrospective charging and machinery provisions were treated as within competence, the retrospective operation was not found arbitrary, and the burden of proving non-collection of tax for exemption purposes could be placed on the dealer because the relevant facts were within the dealer&#039;s special knowledge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:48:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 360 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154426</link>
      <description>A validating constitutional amendment expanded &quot;sale of goods&quot; to include supply of food and drinks in hotels, restaurants and eating houses, curing the defect identified in earlier decisions and sustaining past sales tax levies, subject to statutory exemption. The Andhra Pradesh sales tax amendment was also upheld: the legislature&#039;s retrospective charging and machinery provisions were treated as within competence, the retrospective operation was not found arbitrary, and the burden of proving non-collection of tax for exemption purposes could be placed on the dealer because the relevant facts were within the dealer&#039;s special knowledge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>