<?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>1990 (2) TMI 285 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156110</link>
    <description>Sales tax, additional tax and surcharge on wheat and wheat products do not violate Article 301 merely because tax rates differ between States. A restriction on trade and commerce arises only where a levy directly and immediately impedes the free flow of trade or creates discriminatory treatment, such as preferential treatment for local goods or a tax on movement of goods. The applicable ceiling for declared goods and comparative State tax positions did not establish such an impediment. The additional tax and surcharge were not independently unconstitutional, and a subsequent rate reduction further weakened the challenge. The writ petitions were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:39:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 285 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156110</link>
      <description>Sales tax, additional tax and surcharge on wheat and wheat products do not violate Article 301 merely because tax rates differ between States. A restriction on trade and commerce arises only where a levy directly and immediately impedes the free flow of trade or creates discriminatory treatment, such as preferential treatment for local goods or a tax on movement of goods. The applicable ceiling for declared goods and comparative State tax positions did not establish such an impediment. The additional tax and surcharge were not independently unconstitutional, and a subsequent rate reduction further weakened the challenge. The writ petitions were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>