<?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>2001 (7) TMI 1252 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160401</link>
    <description>Cable jointing kits were treated as electronic goods for concessional sales tax because the competent Government clarification was accepted as a reliable contemporaneous guide to the meaning of the relevant Government Orders. That clarification bound assessing and revisional authorities, so a contrary classification by the Commissioner could not stand. The same State-law classification also applied to Central sales tax where the statute provided parity with the State rate. On that basis, the revisional order was held unsustainable, the assessment orders were restored, and the appellants were entitled to refund or adjustment of amounts already paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:54:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1252 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160401</link>
      <description>Cable jointing kits were treated as electronic goods for concessional sales tax because the competent Government clarification was accepted as a reliable contemporaneous guide to the meaning of the relevant Government Orders. That clarification bound assessing and revisional authorities, so a contrary classification by the Commissioner could not stand. The same State-law classification also applied to Central sales tax where the statute provided parity with the State rate. On that basis, the revisional order was held unsustainable, the assessment orders were restored, and the appellants were entitled to refund or adjustment of amounts already paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>