<?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>1997 (7) TMI 638 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159424</link>
    <description>A sales tax deferment scheme for new industrial units was confined to tax on products manufactured by those units and did not extend to purchase tax on raw materials used in production. The court read the Government Order according to its plain language and held that a beneficial interpretation cannot enlarge a taxing concession beyond the express wording of the notification. It further noted that the scheme was quantified by fixed capital cost and the prescribed period, confirming that its scope was limited to the manufactured products alone. The deferment therefore did not apply to purchase tax on raw material, and the claim failed in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:24:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 638 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159424</link>
      <description>A sales tax deferment scheme for new industrial units was confined to tax on products manufactured by those units and did not extend to purchase tax on raw materials used in production. The court read the Government Order according to its plain language and held that a beneficial interpretation cannot enlarge a taxing concession beyond the express wording of the notification. It further noted that the scheme was quantified by fixed capital cost and the prescribed period, confirming that its scope was limited to the manufactured products alone. The deferment therefore did not apply to purchase tax on raw material, and the claim failed in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>