<?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 (7) TMI 1072 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181019</link>
    <description>Reasonable opportunity was found to have been afforded before the revisional order, so the natural justice challenge failed. The Commissioner&#039;s revisional jurisdiction under section 20(1) was held wide enough to cover subordinate revisional orders, and the earlier revision by the Deputy Commissioner did not bar review of the unexamined exemption issue, so jurisdiction was upheld. HDPE bags used only as packing for cement were treated as not independently sold; under the then deeming provision they were liable at the same rate as cement, so that levy was sustained. However, the Commissioner had to consider the alternate claims on G forms, set-off and rate variation during the year, so the matter was remitted for limited reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 09:01:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422741" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 1072 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181019</link>
      <description>Reasonable opportunity was found to have been afforded before the revisional order, so the natural justice challenge failed. The Commissioner&#039;s revisional jurisdiction under section 20(1) was held wide enough to cover subordinate revisional orders, and the earlier revision by the Deputy Commissioner did not bar review of the unexamined exemption issue, so jurisdiction was upheld. HDPE bags used only as packing for cement were treated as not independently sold; under the then deeming provision they were liable at the same rate as cement, so that levy was sustained. However, the Commissioner had to consider the alternate claims on G forms, set-off and rate variation during the year, so the matter was remitted for limited reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>