<?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 510 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158760</link>
    <description>Interest on delayed entertainment tax was held payable for periods before Rule 20-A was inserted, because the liability already existed under sections 5(8) and 10(1) of the A.P. Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. Section 16(2-A) enabled retrospective rule-making, and Rule 20-A was read as fixing the rate of interest from the prescribed due date rather than creating a new liability. The court therefore treated the rule as covering earlier defaults and rejected a purely prospective construction. Strict interpretation of taxing provisions did not displace the clear statutory scheme, and the demand for interest was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:27:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 510 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158760</link>
      <description>Interest on delayed entertainment tax was held payable for periods before Rule 20-A was inserted, because the liability already existed under sections 5(8) and 10(1) of the A.P. Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. Section 16(2-A) enabled retrospective rule-making, and Rule 20-A was read as fixing the rate of interest from the prescribed due date rather than creating a new liability. The court therefore treated the rule as covering earlier defaults and rejected a purely prospective construction. Strict interpretation of taxing provisions did not displace the clear statutory scheme, and the demand for interest was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>