Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1996 (9) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssing officer rejecting the contention of the assessee that under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act, it is entitled to exemption. The case of the assessee was that by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 604, Revenue(S), dated April 9, 1981, when once exemption was granted in respect of the above turnovers under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the APGST Act") the assessing officer had no power to hold that the dealer was not entitled to exemption under section 8(2-A) of the CST Act. The assessing officer was of the opinion that G.O. Ms. No. 604, Revenue(S), dated April 9, 1981 is not of a general nature but a conditional one and, therefore, although under the APGST Act the turnovers in question were eligible for exemption, the sam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempts from payment of tax under the said Act on the sales of all varieties of certified and truthfully labelled seeds for agricultural purposes in the course of inter-State trade or commerce with effect from the 15th February, 1989." 5.. The judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Pinakini Seeds case [1988] 6 APSTJ 140 was reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in Pinakini Seeds v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 98 STC 144. Interpreting G.O. Ms. No. 604, the Division Bench held: "As stated above, 'certified and truthfully labelled seeds' are seeds which have been so classified under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate.   Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods."   8. Section 9 of the APGST Act confers power on State Government to notify exemption and reduction of tax or interest. A Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (M.N. Rao, J.) in Vinod Solvent Extrac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich was subsequently reversed in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. [1995] 96 STC 355 (SC), we should not accept the Pinakini Seeds case [1995] 98 STC 144 (AP), as a binding precedent, in our considered opinion does not merit acceptance. The question that fell for consideration in Pine Chemicals Ltd. case [1992] 85 STC 432 (SC) which was subsequently reviewed and reversed in Pine Chemicals Ltd. case [1995] 96 STC 355 (SC) related to identification of the exempted goods qua the goods or the dealer. Such a controversy has not arisen for resolution in the present case before us. We are, therefore, not inclined to discuss the other aspects of the aforesaid Pine Chemicals Ltd. case [1992] 85 STC 432, decided by the Supreme Court. W....