<?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>1989 (1) TMI 321 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155624</link>
    <description>Amendments to the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; and section 11 did not permit tax to be levied on an agent selling general goods for several principals by clubbing all principals&#039; turnover. The Court noted that an agent&#039;s liability is ordinarily coextensive with the principal&#039;s liability and that section 11 is a machinery provision. Because the validating changes were directed specially to jaggery and no similar provision was made for other general goods, the principal remained liable only if its turnover exceeded the statutory limit under section 5(1). An agent could not be assessed merely because the combined turnover on behalf of multiple principals crossed the threshold when each principal individually remained below it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 18:42:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (1) TMI 321 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155624</link>
      <description>Amendments to the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; and section 11 did not permit tax to be levied on an agent selling general goods for several principals by clubbing all principals&#039; turnover. The Court noted that an agent&#039;s liability is ordinarily coextensive with the principal&#039;s liability and that section 11 is a machinery provision. Because the validating changes were directed specially to jaggery and no similar provision was made for other general goods, the principal remained liable only if its turnover exceeded the statutory limit under section 5(1). An agent could not be assessed merely because the combined turnover on behalf of multiple principals crossed the threshold when each principal individually remained below it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>