<?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>2000 (12) TMI 276 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95147</link>
    <description>A tax classification for spirituous medicinal preparations containing more than 12% alcohol was treated as constitutionally valid because it applied uniformly across systems of medicine and was based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of taxation. Ordinary Ayurvedic, Homeopathic and Unani medicines remained separately exempt, while higher-alcohol medicinal preparations were separately taxed. The earlier Ayurveda Pharmacy decision was distinguished because it dealt with a different statutory scheme in which Ayurvedic preparations were treated differently despite remaining medicinal preparations. The challenge to Item 67 under Article 14 therefore failed, and the reassessment directions were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 276 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95147</link>
      <description>A tax classification for spirituous medicinal preparations containing more than 12% alcohol was treated as constitutionally valid because it applied uniformly across systems of medicine and was based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of taxation. Ordinary Ayurvedic, Homeopathic and Unani medicines remained separately exempt, while higher-alcohol medicinal preparations were separately taxed. The earlier Ayurveda Pharmacy decision was distinguished because it dealt with a different statutory scheme in which Ayurvedic preparations were treated differently despite remaining medicinal preparations. The challenge to Item 67 under Article 14 therefore failed, and the reassessment directions were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>