<?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>1992 (3) TMI 322 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156588</link>
    <description>A tax levy under section 5-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was upheld because the charging provision itself identified the taxable event, the liable dealer, the rate, and the measure of tax as the total amount charged for supply of food or drink. The later amendment enlarging the definitions of &quot;sale,&quot; &quot;turnover&quot; and &quot;tax&quot; did not prevent assessment for the retrospective period, and Rule 5 could not override the statutory charge. The challenge to assessment for the period from 2 February 1983 to 30 June 1985 was rejected, and the demand remained undisturbed, subject only to consideration of the plea regarding non-collection before the assessing authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:10:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 322 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156588</link>
      <description>A tax levy under section 5-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was upheld because the charging provision itself identified the taxable event, the liable dealer, the rate, and the measure of tax as the total amount charged for supply of food or drink. The later amendment enlarging the definitions of &quot;sale,&quot; &quot;turnover&quot; and &quot;tax&quot; did not prevent assessment for the retrospective period, and Rule 5 could not override the statutory charge. The challenge to assessment for the period from 2 February 1983 to 30 June 1985 was rejected, and the demand remained undisturbed, subject only to consideration of the plea regarding non-collection before the assessing authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>