<?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 624 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161961</link>
    <description>Packaged drinking water units were held entitled to sales tax exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 108 because the incentive scheme extended relief to eligible new industrial units and did not define &quot;manufacture.&quot; The court noted that the sales tax statute separately classified ordinary water and packaged drinking water/mineral water in different schedules, showing distinct tax treatment; on that basis, the concession could not be refused merely because packaged drinking water was placed in a taxable schedule. The Kerala ruling relied on by the revenue was found inapplicable since that notification contained an express definition of &quot;manufacture,&quot; which was absent here. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:13:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 624 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161961</link>
      <description>Packaged drinking water units were held entitled to sales tax exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 108 because the incentive scheme extended relief to eligible new industrial units and did not define &quot;manufacture.&quot; The court noted that the sales tax statute separately classified ordinary water and packaged drinking water/mineral water in different schedules, showing distinct tax treatment; on that basis, the concession could not be refused merely because packaged drinking water was placed in a taxable schedule. The Kerala ruling relied on by the revenue was found inapplicable since that notification contained an express definition of &quot;manufacture,&quot; which was absent here. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>