<?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>1961 (3) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99377</link>
    <description>The Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 was treated as broad enough to validate assessments on sales occurring within the specified period, including transactions said to be in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. Its effect was to remove the constitutional bar under Article 286(2), so the State law did not need to have expressly taxed inter-State sales in those terms. The charging provision, read with the statutory definition of sale and the deeming explanation, brought the transactions within the Act. New section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 did not reduce that liability, because its saving clause preserved tax liability under other provisions and the earlier repetition of Article 286(2) had become unnecessary once Parliament lifted the ban.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (3) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99377</link>
      <description>The Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956 was treated as broad enough to validate assessments on sales occurring within the specified period, including transactions said to be in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. Its effect was to remove the constitutional bar under Article 286(2), so the State law did not need to have expressly taxed inter-State sales in those terms. The charging provision, read with the statutory definition of sale and the deeming explanation, brought the transactions within the Act. New section 22 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 did not reduce that liability, because its saving clause preserved tax liability under other provisions and the earlier repetition of Article 286(2) had become unnecessary once Parliament lifted the ban.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>