<?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 (1) TMI 943 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160646</link>
    <description>Revisional jurisdiction conditioned on prejudice to revenue could not be exercised where the authority itself found no revenue loss and the relevant tax had already been paid by the contractor. The court also held that a procedural objection based on natural justice failed because the assessee had notice of the proposed grounds, filed detailed objections, and showed no material prejudice from the form of notice. On the tax issue, the agreement and accounts showed a commission arrangement for manufacture and supply of finished beedies, with the contractor purchasing the beedi leaves on its own account, so the assessee was not liable as the last purchaser of beedi leaves.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:12:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 943 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160646</link>
      <description>Revisional jurisdiction conditioned on prejudice to revenue could not be exercised where the authority itself found no revenue loss and the relevant tax had already been paid by the contractor. The court also held that a procedural objection based on natural justice failed because the assessee had notice of the proposed grounds, filed detailed objections, and showed no material prejudice from the form of notice. On the tax issue, the agreement and accounts showed a commission arrangement for manufacture and supply of finished beedies, with the contractor purchasing the beedi leaves on its own account, so the assessee was not liable as the last purchaser of beedi leaves.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>