<?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>2004 (6) TMI 596 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161929</link>
    <description>The amended composition rate under Section 5-G of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act merely reduced the tax rate from 4% to 2% and did not create a separate entitlement to composition relief. A dealer seeking that benefit still had to comply with Rule 6-B, including filing the application within 30 days from the commencement of the year or business, subject to limited condonation. Because the dealer had not made a timely application and no application was pending when the amendment took effect, the reduced rate could not be claimed. The rejection of the composition request was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 596 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161929</link>
      <description>The amended composition rate under Section 5-G of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act merely reduced the tax rate from 4% to 2% and did not create a separate entitlement to composition relief. A dealer seeking that benefit still had to comply with Rule 6-B, including filing the application within 30 days from the commencement of the year or business, subject to limited condonation. Because the dealer had not made a timely application and no application was pending when the amendment took effect, the reduced rate could not be claimed. The rejection of the composition request was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>