<?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>1958 (3) TMI 40 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98778</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, as adapted for Andhra, was treated as imposing a conditional levy on sales where goods were delivered in Andhra for consumption there, even if property passed outside the State. Parliament&#039;s Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 was held valid under Article 286(2) to remove the constitutional bar for the specified period and to validate operation of existing State sales tax laws retrospectively. The State provision was not treated as void or dead; once the constitutional restriction was lifted, fresh assessment proceedings under section 22 were competent without new State legislation. The Court also rejected objections based on exclusive Union competence, the single-point levy, and the Essential Commodities Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (3) TMI 40 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98778</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, as adapted for Andhra, was treated as imposing a conditional levy on sales where goods were delivered in Andhra for consumption there, even if property passed outside the State. Parliament&#039;s Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 was held valid under Article 286(2) to remove the constitutional bar for the specified period and to validate operation of existing State sales tax laws retrospectively. The State provision was not treated as void or dead; once the constitutional restriction was lifted, fresh assessment proceedings under section 22 were competent without new State legislation. The Court also rejected objections based on exclusive Union competence, the single-point levy, and the Essential Commodities Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>