<?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 378 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156766</link>
    <description>Jowar retained its identity as a declared commodity under the Central Sales Tax Act even when sold in seed form, so its character did not change merely because of its form. In the absence of C forms, section 8(2)(a) required central sales tax at twice the applicable State sales tax rate; on the admitted State rate of 2 per cent, the CST rate was 4 per cent. The Revenue&#039;s revision therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:04:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173792" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 378 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156766</link>
      <description>Jowar retained its identity as a declared commodity under the Central Sales Tax Act even when sold in seed form, so its character did not change merely because of its form. In the absence of C forms, section 8(2)(a) required central sales tax at twice the applicable State sales tax rate; on the admitted State rate of 2 per cent, the CST rate was 4 per cent. The Revenue&#039;s revision therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>