<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1253 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212859</link>
    <description>In a taxing schedule using the words &quot;that is to say&quot;, the listed iron and steel items were treated as exhaustive and classified by distinct commercial identity. Stainless steel tubes, seamless stainless steel tubes and stainless steel ball bearing tubes were held not to fall under the Third Schedule entry for steel tubes, but under the wider First Schedule entry for articles; stainless steel scrap was not brought within the Third Schedule on the reasoning adopted. Separately, supply between units of the same Department of Atomic Energy was held to be an internal stock transfer, not an inter-State sale, because a sale requires distinct contracting parties and consideration between separate persons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 11:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1253 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212859</link>
      <description>In a taxing schedule using the words &quot;that is to say&quot;, the listed iron and steel items were treated as exhaustive and classified by distinct commercial identity. Stainless steel tubes, seamless stainless steel tubes and stainless steel ball bearing tubes were held not to fall under the Third Schedule entry for steel tubes, but under the wider First Schedule entry for articles; stainless steel scrap was not brought within the Third Schedule on the reasoning adopted. Separately, supply between units of the same Department of Atomic Energy was held to be an internal stock transfer, not an inter-State sale, because a sale requires distinct contracting parties and consideration between separate persons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>