<?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 (12) TMI 838 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160179</link>
    <description>Discount allocation between excisable goods and packing materials is treated as a factual question where the Tribunal, after examining sale bills, found the discount applied only to liquor and not to bottles or cartons; that finding was upheld as not raising any question of law. Credit notes issued periodically during the financial year were treated as an abatement of turnover, so the related reduction could not be included in taxable turnover. The revisional authority&#039;s reliance on extracted observations from an earlier High Court stay order was held to be a misreading, because those observations did not declare a separate liability apart from legal entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:51:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 838 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160179</link>
      <description>Discount allocation between excisable goods and packing materials is treated as a factual question where the Tribunal, after examining sale bills, found the discount applied only to liquor and not to bottles or cartons; that finding was upheld as not raising any question of law. Credit notes issued periodically during the financial year were treated as an abatement of turnover, so the related reduction could not be included in taxable turnover. The revisional authority&#039;s reliance on extracted observations from an earlier High Court stay order was held to be a misreading, because those observations did not declare a separate liability apart from legal entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>