<?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 (10) TMI 623 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161776</link>
    <description>An exemption notification under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was construed according to its object and the background of the representation that procured it. The concession was intended for roller flour mills purchasing wheat for grinding activity, so mills that merely bought and sold wheat without undertaking grinding did not fall within the beneficiary class. The earlier broad reading was treated as based on a misunderstanding of the notification, and a concession obtained by misrepresentation could not be expanded through promissory estoppel. The revisional order withdrawing the appellate relief was therefore upheld, and the exemption was denied to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 14:38:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 623 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161776</link>
      <description>An exemption notification under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was construed according to its object and the background of the representation that procured it. The concession was intended for roller flour mills purchasing wheat for grinding activity, so mills that merely bought and sold wheat without undertaking grinding did not fall within the beneficiary class. The earlier broad reading was treated as based on a misunderstanding of the notification, and a concession obtained by misrepresentation could not be expanded through promissory estoppel. The revisional order withdrawing the appellate relief was therefore upheld, and the exemption was denied to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>