<?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 (11) TMI 536 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162177</link>
    <description>Section 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was interpreted as a whole to permit concessional tax only in the stated circumstances and to authorise the Government to notify goods excluded from the concession. The Court treated that notification power as operative, not redundant, and held that placing beedi leaves in the negative list was within the statutory scheme. The discrimination challenge also failed, because withdrawal of the concession was considered a permissible classification under the recognised taxing power. The Government Order was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:18:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346620" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 536 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162177</link>
      <description>Section 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was interpreted as a whole to permit concessional tax only in the stated circumstances and to authorise the Government to notify goods excluded from the concession. The Court treated that notification power as operative, not redundant, and held that placing beedi leaves in the negative list was within the statutory scheme. The discrimination challenge also failed, because withdrawal of the concession was considered a permissible classification under the recognised taxing power. The Government Order was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>