<?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>1987 (9) TMI 404 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155545</link>
    <description>G.O. Ms. No. 540 was construed as reducing only the basic rate of sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, because its reference to a reduction of tax notwithstanding the Schedules was read as directed to the charging entries alone. The absence of any express exemption from additional tax and surcharge, unlike other government orders that said so expressly, was treated as significant, and the contemporaneous government clarification confirmed that additional tax under section 5-A and surcharge under section 6-B remained leviable. The notification therefore did not cap total tax liability at 4 per cent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:24:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 404 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155545</link>
      <description>G.O. Ms. No. 540 was construed as reducing only the basic rate of sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, because its reference to a reduction of tax notwithstanding the Schedules was read as directed to the charging entries alone. The absence of any express exemption from additional tax and surcharge, unlike other government orders that said so expressly, was treated as significant, and the contemporaneous government clarification confirmed that additional tax under section 5-A and surcharge under section 6-B remained leviable. The notification therefore did not cap total tax liability at 4 per cent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>