<?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>2025 (6) TMI 780 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772667</link>
    <description>The AP HC held that the Government of Andhra Pradesh&#039;s attempt to deduct customs duty amounts from contract values through its Memo dated 21.05.2008 was illegal and void. The court found that the government memo sought to retrospectively alter executed contract terms without legal basis, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The tender conditions clearly stipulated that all duties and taxes were included in the quoted contract value. The court ruled that the Internal Bench Mark was only for qualifying price bids and had no relevance beyond that purpose. The contractor was entitled to customs duty exemption benefits under Central Government regulations. The petition was allowed and the impugned government memo was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=828515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 780 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772667</link>
      <description>The AP HC held that the Government of Andhra Pradesh&#039;s attempt to deduct customs duty amounts from contract values through its Memo dated 21.05.2008 was illegal and void. The court found that the government memo sought to retrospectively alter executed contract terms without legal basis, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The tender conditions clearly stipulated that all duties and taxes were included in the quoted contract value. The court ruled that the Internal Bench Mark was only for qualifying price bids and had no relevance beyond that purpose. The contractor was entitled to customs duty exemption benefits under Central Government regulations. The petition was allowed and the impugned government memo was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>