<?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 23 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10060</link>
    <description>Tax collection at source under section 206C depends on whether goods sold are timber or other forest produce within the statutory description, rather than agricultural produce raised through cultivation. The character of the produce requires a factual determination based on agricultural operations; reliance on the Forest Act alone does not resolve that issue. Where this factual enquiry was absent, the revisional order required reconsideration and was set aside to that extent. The seller&#039;s duty to collect and remit tax, including liability for failure to collect, was treated as a machinery provision, and objections based on lack of an express default provision and delay were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 23 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10060</link>
      <description>Tax collection at source under section 206C depends on whether goods sold are timber or other forest produce within the statutory description, rather than agricultural produce raised through cultivation. The character of the produce requires a factual determination based on agricultural operations; reliance on the Forest Act alone does not resolve that issue. Where this factual enquiry was absent, the revisional order required reconsideration and was set aside to that extent. The seller&#039;s duty to collect and remit tax, including liability for failure to collect, was treated as a machinery provision, and objections based on lack of an express default provision and delay were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>