TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the 1996 Act was in exercise of its legislative powers by the State Legislature. The validity of the amendment had not been questioned either in the writ petition or even before us. That being the fact situation, the grievance made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the demand of differential tax based on the amendment of entry 37 could not have been made, is wholly mis-con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Tax Officer [1999] 113 STC 398 supra), a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, through which challenge had been made to the demand of difference of sales tax, which had occasioned as a result of an amendment of entry 37 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, by Act No. 27 of 1996. By virtue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly mis-conceived. It is settled-position that an assessee is liable to pay sales tax and the question whether he has collected it from consumer or not is of no consequence. His liability is by virtue of being an assessee under the Act. 3.. Learned counsel relies upon Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. (1998) 1 Scale 58. That judgment has no application whatsoever, as the amendment th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
