<?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 (3) TMI 480 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158249</link>
    <description>Article 131 confers the Supreme Court&#039;s exclusive original jurisdiction only on disputes arising from the constitutional relationship between the Union and the States; an ordinary fiscal controversy over whether the Union is treated as a dealer for sales tax purposes does not attract that bar, so the writ was maintainable. Article 285(1) protects Union property from direct State taxation, but not from a tax on the act of sale. The amended A.P. General Sales Tax Act provisions were read as valid deeming provisions covering sales of confiscated goods by customs authorities, and the sales tax levy on such sales was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:20:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 480 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158249</link>
      <description>Article 131 confers the Supreme Court&#039;s exclusive original jurisdiction only on disputes arising from the constitutional relationship between the Union and the States; an ordinary fiscal controversy over whether the Union is treated as a dealer for sales tax purposes does not attract that bar, so the writ was maintainable. Article 285(1) protects Union property from direct State taxation, but not from a tax on the act of sale. The amended A.P. General Sales Tax Act provisions were read as valid deeming provisions covering sales of confiscated goods by customs authorities, and the sales tax levy on such sales was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>