<?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>1966 (4) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200353</link>
    <description>The court held that the levy of octroi did not violate Article 301 and met the requirements of Article 304(b), constituting a reasonable restriction in the public interest. Groundnut oil was deemed to qualify as &#039;food&#039; under the District Municipalities Act. The revision petition was dismissed, one writ petition was allowed with costs, another was partly allowed for reconsideration, and a third challenging the octroi&#039;s validity was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:13:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (4) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200353</link>
      <description>The court held that the levy of octroi did not violate Article 301 and met the requirements of Article 304(b), constituting a reasonable restriction in the public interest. Groundnut oil was deemed to qualify as &#039;food&#039; under the District Municipalities Act. The revision petition was dismissed, one writ petition was allowed with costs, another was partly allowed for reconsideration, and a third challenging the octroi&#039;s validity was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200353</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>