<?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 incentive scheme was governed by the final eligibility certificate, which fixed entitlement by annual production and base turnover. Tax paid between expiry of a temporary certificate and final sanction could be adjusted against future dues only after the eligibility period ended; monthly production or alternative base-production calculations could not replace the prescribed annual basis. G.O. Ms. No. 18 applied to the intervening period and did not create a right to earlier adjustment. Incentives remained available only within the governing orders, and no constitutional or statutory basis supported the Article 14 challenge. The writ petition was dismissed, sustaining the adjustment mechanism, circular, notice, and Government Order.</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 incentive scheme was governed by the final eligibility certificate, which fixed entitlement by annual production and base turnover. Tax paid between expiry of a temporary certificate and final sanction could be adjusted against future dues only after the eligibility period ended; monthly production or alternative base-production calculations could not replace the prescribed annual basis. G.O. Ms. No. 18 applied to the intervening period and did not create a right to earlier adjustment. Incentives remained available only within the governing orders, and no constitutional or statutory basis supported the Article 14 challenge. The writ petition was dismissed, sustaining the adjustment mechanism, circular, notice, and Government Order.</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>