<?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>2015 (2) TMI 473 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256473</link>
    <description>Works-contract tax remains payable on the value of goods at the time of incorporation, and the contractor is entitled to credit for tax deducted at source on proof of the prescribed certificates, so only the balance can be recovered. Revisional jurisdiction was not barred because the earlier Tribunal order had not decided the governing legal issue on merits in light of the relevant statute and binding precedent, so reopening was permitted. Denial of composition required examination of the statutory preconditions, while promissory estoppel could not be invoked for exemption because no promise was made by the State to the contractor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 473 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256473</link>
      <description>Works-contract tax remains payable on the value of goods at the time of incorporation, and the contractor is entitled to credit for tax deducted at source on proof of the prescribed certificates, so only the balance can be recovered. Revisional jurisdiction was not barred because the earlier Tribunal order had not decided the governing legal issue on merits in light of the relevant statute and binding precedent, so reopening was permitted. Denial of composition required examination of the statutory preconditions, while promissory estoppel could not be invoked for exemption because no promise was made by the State to the contractor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>