https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434673 Section 17(5)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was upheld as a valid exception to the general registration scheme, and not inconsistent with the turnover-based provisions. However, the court held that the plural expression "purchases or sales" could not be stretched to cover a single inter-State purchase, so the dealer was not required to register as a VAT dealer on that basis and remained a turnover tax dealer. The extended limitation period applied because under-declaration and evasion were alleged, but the VAT-based penalty could not stand once the dealer's correct status was recognised. The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative remedy because it raised validity and jurisdiction issues. en-us Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Mar 2023 10:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434673 Section 17(5)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was upheld as a valid exception to the general registration scheme, and not inconsistent with the turnover-based provisions. However, the court held that the plural expression "purchases or sales" could not be stretched to cover a single inter-State purchase, so the dealer was not required to register as a VAT dealer on that basis and remained a turnover tax dealer. The extended limitation period applied because under-declaration and evasion were alleged, but the VAT-based penalty could not stand once the dealer's correct status was recognised. The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative remedy because it raised validity and jurisdiction issues. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434673