<?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 (12) TMI 365 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158909</link>
    <description>After the constitutional amendment permitting taxation of works contracts, the State could levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of such contracts. Section 5F was therefore upheld in substance, but provisos requiring transfer in the same form, excluding protected interstate purchases, and imposing an unreasonable burden to prove sub-contractor turnover were struck down or read down. Section 5G, providing composition as an alternative mode of tax payment, was upheld subject to deletion of the same unreasonable proof requirement. Section 5H, authorising tax deduction at source, was also upheld as a valid advance collection mechanism. Rule 6(2) was upheld with deletions, rule 6(3)(i) was read down, and rule 6(3)(ii) was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2016 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 365 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158909</link>
      <description>After the constitutional amendment permitting taxation of works contracts, the State could levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of such contracts. Section 5F was therefore upheld in substance, but provisos requiring transfer in the same form, excluding protected interstate purchases, and imposing an unreasonable burden to prove sub-contractor turnover were struck down or read down. Section 5G, providing composition as an alternative mode of tax payment, was upheld subject to deletion of the same unreasonable proof requirement. Section 5H, authorising tax deduction at source, was also upheld as a valid advance collection mechanism. Rule 6(2) was upheld with deletions, rule 6(3)(i) was read down, and rule 6(3)(ii) was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>