<?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 (2) TMI 996 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160593</link>
    <description>A sales tax set-off under G.O. Ms. No. 774 dated 9 July 1985 was confined to finished products manufactured in the State from rerollable scrap by steel rerollers and mini steel plant-cum-rerollers. A dealer who did not own such a unit, but got the scrap converted through hired rerollers, satisfied the local purchase, manufacture and sale conditions yet failed the express requirement that the manufacture be by the specified class of assessees. Earlier authorities on different statutory language, such as &quot;manufacturer&quot; or &quot;miller,&quot; did not justify extending the concession. In exemption matters, ambiguity is resolved against the claimant, so the dealer was not entitled to the set-off.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:41:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 996 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160593</link>
      <description>A sales tax set-off under G.O. Ms. No. 774 dated 9 July 1985 was confined to finished products manufactured in the State from rerollable scrap by steel rerollers and mini steel plant-cum-rerollers. A dealer who did not own such a unit, but got the scrap converted through hired rerollers, satisfied the local purchase, manufacture and sale conditions yet failed the express requirement that the manufacture be by the specified class of assessees. Earlier authorities on different statutory language, such as &quot;manufacturer&quot; or &quot;miller,&quot; did not justify extending the concession. In exemption matters, ambiguity is resolved against the claimant, so the dealer was not entitled to the set-off.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>