<?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>1996 (2) TMI 475 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158248</link>
    <description>Rule 45(1-B) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, which required dealers to maintain accounts using international Indian numerals, was treated as a permissible accounting requirement rather than a restriction on language or script. The court reasoned that numerals are distinct from language, that the rule served accounting discipline and administrative convenience, and that it caused no real handicap to dealers. As section 25 of the Act authorised rules governing the manner of account maintenance, the rule was found within delegated power and not violative of the constitutional guarantees invoked. The challenge accordingly failed and the rule remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:18:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 475 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158248</link>
      <description>Rule 45(1-B) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, which required dealers to maintain accounts using international Indian numerals, was treated as a permissible accounting requirement rather than a restriction on language or script. The court reasoned that numerals are distinct from language, that the rule served accounting discipline and administrative convenience, and that it caused no real handicap to dealers. As section 25 of the Act authorised rules governing the manner of account maintenance, the rule was found within delegated power and not violative of the constitutional guarantees invoked. The challenge accordingly failed and the rule remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>