https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98729 Article 286(3) was construed as operating only on a State law made after the commencement of the Constitution and requiring Presidential assent. A pre-Constitution sales tax ordinance continued under Article 372 was therefore outside its scope and was not rendered void. Section 3 of the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1952 was treated as consistent with Article 286(3) and, in any event, did not affect the ordinance because the ordinance predated that Act. The challenge to the sales tax liability consequently failed, and the petition was dismissed. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:42:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98729 Article 286(3) was construed as operating only on a State law made after the commencement of the Constitution and requiring Presidential assent. A pre-Constitution sales tax ordinance continued under Article 372 was therefore outside its scope and was not rendered void. Section 3 of the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1952 was treated as consistent with Article 286(3) and, in any event, did not affect the ordinance because the ordinance predated that Act. The challenge to the sales tax liability consequently failed, and the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 11 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98729