TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which levied tax on tobacco products with reference to the maximum retail price printed on the package, was constitutionally valid and within the legislative competence of the State under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The impugned provision did not adopt the actual sale price as the measure of tax but proceeded on a notional price, namely the maximum retail price indicated on the container or pack. The Court found this to be materially similar to the levy considered in the Rajasthan Chemists line of cases, where a tax measure divorced from the actual sale transaction was held to travel beyond the State's competence under entry 54 of List II. The judgments relied upon by the State were held not to assist it, because the essential defect was that the levy was based on a hypothetical price rather than the real consideration for sale.
Conclusion: Sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was held unconstitutional as being beyond the legislative competence of the State under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, and the writ petition was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: A State tax on sale of goods under entry 54 of List II cannot be measured by a notional price detached from the actual sale transaction; a levy based on such a measure is beyond legislative competence.
TaxTMI 
