Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the State Legislature was competent to levy State Development Tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Analysis: Entry 54 of List II authorises taxation on the sale or purchase of goods, and the expression is to be understood with the expanded meaning given by Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution of India. The Act defined "tax" in an inclusive manner, and the charging scheme was not confined to trade tax alone. Section 3-H created a separate levy on taxable turnover, linked to the event of sale or purchase, and the amended definition of tax expressly brought State Development Tax within the statutory framework. The Court found that the levy operated within the legislative field of tax on sale or purchase of goods and that no constitutional or competence-based prohibition was shown.
Conclusion: The levy of State Development Tax was within legislative competence and the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected on merits after upholding the validity of the impugned levy under the taxing power of the State.
Ratio Decidendi: A State tax imposed on the taxable turnover arising from sale or purchase of goods, and brought within an inclusive statutory definition of "tax", is valid if it falls within the legislative field under Entry 54 read with Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution of India.