<?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>1988 (12) TMI 315 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155337</link>
    <description>Processed food sold by sweetmeat shops was treated as a taxable class distinct from restaurants, eating houses, and hotels because the latter involved a service element. The commentary states that a taxing classification is valid if it has a rational nexus with the object of the levy, and that the exemption in section 5-C could not be judicially extended beyond the class of dealers to whom it was confined. It also notes that sales tax is an ordinary incident of trade and that the burden of collection and remittance does not, by itself, amount to an unreasonable restriction on business under Article 19(1)(g). On that basis, parity with service-based food sales was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:54:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (12) TMI 315 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155337</link>
      <description>Processed food sold by sweetmeat shops was treated as a taxable class distinct from restaurants, eating houses, and hotels because the latter involved a service element. The commentary states that a taxing classification is valid if it has a rational nexus with the object of the levy, and that the exemption in section 5-C could not be judicially extended beyond the class of dealers to whom it was confined. It also notes that sales tax is an ordinary incident of trade and that the burden of collection and remittance does not, by itself, amount to an unreasonable restriction on business under Article 19(1)(g). On that basis, parity with service-based food sales was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>