<?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>1986 (7) TMI 391 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156318</link>
    <description>An industrial unit set up in a scheduled area and commenced within the terms of a sales tax exemption notification was entitled to five years&#039; exemption once production began. The later amendment did not expressly repeal the earlier notification, and no retrospective operation was shown. On that basis, the exemption was treated as an accrued right that could not be taken away by the subsequent modification, so the levy of sales tax failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:47:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 391 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156318</link>
      <description>An industrial unit set up in a scheduled area and commenced within the terms of a sales tax exemption notification was entitled to five years&#039; exemption once production began. The later amendment did not expressly repeal the earlier notification, and no retrospective operation was shown. On that basis, the exemption was treated as an accrued right that could not be taken away by the subsequent modification, so the levy of sales tax failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>