<?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 379 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160236</link>
    <description>Twenty-day-old prawns were held to fall under entry 19 of the Second Schedule rather than as unclassified goods under the Seventh Schedule. The tribunal&#039;s factual finding that the goods sold were prawns, not larvae, was ative, and the higher tax treatment contended for on a larvae classification was rejected. The dispute was treated as one of factual classification, and no question of law arose from the tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:28:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 379 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160236</link>
      <description>Twenty-day-old prawns were held to fall under entry 19 of the Second Schedule rather than as unclassified goods under the Seventh Schedule. The tribunal&#039;s factual finding that the goods sold were prawns, not larvae, was ative, and the higher tax treatment contended for on a larvae classification was rejected. The dispute was treated as one of factual classification, and no question of law arose from the tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>