<?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>2012 (2) TMI 460 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168016</link>
    <description>Rule 16(2)(c) of the APVAT Rules, 2005 allowed exclusion from taxable turnover only of incentive amounts sanctioned by the Union or State Government for farmers, subject to the Commissioner&#039;s guidelines. The Union letters for the relevant Kharif seasons were aimed at ensuring that incentive bonus reached farmers without State taxes and levies, and did not create a general exemption for rice millers. On that scheme, the incentive bonus exemption was confined to levy rice supplied through FCI or State agencies and did not extend to open market sales or inter-State sales. The impugned circular was therefore consistent with the governing policy and rule, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 460 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168016</link>
      <description>Rule 16(2)(c) of the APVAT Rules, 2005 allowed exclusion from taxable turnover only of incentive amounts sanctioned by the Union or State Government for farmers, subject to the Commissioner&#039;s guidelines. The Union letters for the relevant Kharif seasons were aimed at ensuring that incentive bonus reached farmers without State taxes and levies, and did not create a general exemption for rice millers. On that scheme, the incentive bonus exemption was confined to levy rice supplied through FCI or State agencies and did not extend to open market sales or inter-State sales. The impugned circular was therefore consistent with the governing policy and rule, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>