<?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>1991 (2) TMI 363 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156250</link>
    <description>Ravva obtained from rice was held taxable at the concessional single-point rate of 1% for the pre-amendment period, because the sales tax scheme treated it as part of the declared goods structure and did not require separate proof that rice alone had suffered tax. The Court found that taxing rice ravva at 5% would be inconsistent with the statutory treatment of paddy, rice, and the tax already borne by the principal commodity. It further held that the later amendment to item 144(b), referring to rice including paddy out of which rice is produced, was clarificatory rather than creating a new levy, so it applied to the earlier period and supported the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:28:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 363 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156250</link>
      <description>Ravva obtained from rice was held taxable at the concessional single-point rate of 1% for the pre-amendment period, because the sales tax scheme treated it as part of the declared goods structure and did not require separate proof that rice alone had suffered tax. The Court found that taxing rice ravva at 5% would be inconsistent with the statutory treatment of paddy, rice, and the tax already borne by the principal commodity. It further held that the later amendment to item 144(b), referring to rice including paddy out of which rice is produced, was clarificatory rather than creating a new levy, so it applied to the earlier period and supported the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>