<?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>2003 (3) TMI 693 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161736</link>
    <description>Bottling of liquefied petroleum gas was held not to amount to manufacture or production because the process did not bring into existence a new and distinct commercial commodity; the LPG retained its essential identity, so the sales tax exemption for new industrial units did not apply. Temporary or final eligibility certificates, along with administrative practice, could not enlarge the plain scope of the exemption scheme or create an enforceable right where the competent authority finally negatived eligibility. Promissory estoppel also failed because there was no specific promise to grant exemption beyond the scheme, and non-collection of tax from buyers did not bar levy or recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:44:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 693 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161736</link>
      <description>Bottling of liquefied petroleum gas was held not to amount to manufacture or production because the process did not bring into existence a new and distinct commercial commodity; the LPG retained its essential identity, so the sales tax exemption for new industrial units did not apply. Temporary or final eligibility certificates, along with administrative practice, could not enlarge the plain scope of the exemption scheme or create an enforceable right where the competent authority finally negatived eligibility. Promissory estoppel also failed because there was no specific promise to grant exemption beyond the scheme, and non-collection of tax from buyers did not bar levy or recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>