<?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>1996 (7) TMI 549 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161255</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained without fresh material different from what was available at the original assessment; mere failure to notice the correct position earlier was insufficient, so the reassessments for two years were set aside. For exemption on second sales of cement gunny bags, the assessee had to prove that the first seller was real and identifiable and that the goods had already suffered tax or were liable to tax on the first sale in the State; rule 45(3)(b) was only one mode of proof, not the exclusive one. On the facts, the hawkers were not identifiable and prior taxation was not proved, so the second-sale exemption was disallowed for the third year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 549 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161255</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained without fresh material different from what was available at the original assessment; mere failure to notice the correct position earlier was insufficient, so the reassessments for two years were set aside. For exemption on second sales of cement gunny bags, the assessee had to prove that the first seller was real and identifiable and that the goods had already suffered tax or were liable to tax on the first sale in the State; rule 45(3)(b) was only one mode of proof, not the exclusive one. On the facts, the hawkers were not identifiable and prior taxation was not proved, so the second-sale exemption was disallowed for the third year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>