<?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>1999 (9) TMI 919 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160177</link>
    <description>The concessional rate under G.O. Ms. No. 130 applied to marble tiles because the notification covered tiles generally and did not distinguish between mosaic, marble, or granite varieties. The contention that marble tiles fell under entry 43 of the First Schedule was not accepted. Where reasonable doubt exists about the proper entry in a tax schedule, the classification must be resolved in favour of the assessee, and the Tribunal&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:47:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 919 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160177</link>
      <description>The concessional rate under G.O. Ms. No. 130 applied to marble tiles because the notification covered tiles generally and did not distinguish between mosaic, marble, or granite varieties. The contention that marble tiles fell under entry 43 of the First Schedule was not accepted. Where reasonable doubt exists about the proper entry in a tax schedule, the classification must be resolved in favour of the assessee, and the Tribunal&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>