<?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>1995 (3) TMI 445 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158053</link>
    <description>A deemed sale by transfer of the right to use goods is subject to the constitutional and statutory limits governing inter-State sales, so hire transactions involving movement of goods from outside Andhra Pradesh were treated as inter-State and not liable to tax under section 5-E. The Court also held that withdrawal of an exemption notification takes effect on publication and does not permanently extinguish tax liability for existing lease transactions. Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not established on the facts, but the same goods could not be taxed again under section 5-E where they had already suffered tax under the State&#039;s single point levy scheme. The revisional order was unsustainable and the assessee obtained relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:55:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=328274" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 445 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158053</link>
      <description>A deemed sale by transfer of the right to use goods is subject to the constitutional and statutory limits governing inter-State sales, so hire transactions involving movement of goods from outside Andhra Pradesh were treated as inter-State and not liable to tax under section 5-E. The Court also held that withdrawal of an exemption notification takes effect on publication and does not permanently extinguish tax liability for existing lease transactions. Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not established on the facts, but the same goods could not be taxed again under section 5-E where they had already suffered tax under the State&#039;s single point levy scheme. The revisional order was unsustainable and the assessee obtained relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>