<?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>1959 (8) TMI 63 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307433</link>
    <description>Octroi duty was held not to be a restriction on trade, commerce or intercourse under Article 304(b) because a fiscal impost does not directly and immediately curtail the movement of goods; any indirect economic burden is insufficient, and presidential assent under Article 255 cured any defect in sanction. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act was within State legislative competence under the taxing entry for goods entering a local area, and was not invalid for want of prior presidential sanction. Toddy and sendhi were treated as &quot;beverages&quot; within the octroi schedule and were not exempt as Government property. The Revenue Minister&#039;s note and Government directions did not create an enforceable exemption or displace the levy, so the octroi challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2023 12:01:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (8) TMI 63 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307433</link>
      <description>Octroi duty was held not to be a restriction on trade, commerce or intercourse under Article 304(b) because a fiscal impost does not directly and immediately curtail the movement of goods; any indirect economic burden is insufficient, and presidential assent under Article 255 cured any defect in sanction. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act was within State legislative competence under the taxing entry for goods entering a local area, and was not invalid for want of prior presidential sanction. Toddy and sendhi were treated as &quot;beverages&quot; within the octroi schedule and were not exempt as Government property. The Revenue Minister&#039;s note and Government directions did not create an enforceable exemption or displace the levy, so the octroi challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>