<?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 (6) TMI 807 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161104</link>
    <description>Sales tax deferment under the industrial incentive scheme was governed by the final eligibility certificate and the applicable Government Orders, which fixed entitlement on an annual production basis with base-turnover concepts. Tax paid during the gap between expiry of the temporary eligibility certificate and final sanction was to be adjusted only after the eligibility period ended, so adjustment could not be claimed during the currency of that period and monthly production could not replace the annual basis. The Article 14 challenge to G.O. Ms. No. 18 also failed because no vested or constitutional entitlement was shown to a different adjustment method, and the Government Order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:47:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 807 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161104</link>
      <description>Sales tax deferment under the industrial incentive scheme was governed by the final eligibility certificate and the applicable Government Orders, which fixed entitlement on an annual production basis with base-turnover concepts. Tax paid during the gap between expiry of the temporary eligibility certificate and final sanction was to be adjusted only after the eligibility period ended, so adjustment could not be claimed during the currency of that period and monthly production could not replace the annual basis. The Article 14 challenge to G.O. Ms. No. 18 also failed because no vested or constitutional entitlement was shown to a different adjustment method, and the Government Order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>