https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99624 A State sales tax rule that fixed the point of levy differently for tanned hides and skins processed outside the State and those processed within the State was held discriminatory under Article 304(a) because the relevant comparison is the goods' nature and kind, not whether tax was already paid at an earlier stage. The rule's statutory source did not save it, since a provision made under enabling power remains unconstitutional if its practical operation discriminates against imported goods. The substituted rule also did not revive the earlier rule once the old rule had ceased to exist. The impugned rule was therefore invalid and could not sustain the assessment. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99624 A State sales tax rule that fixed the point of levy differently for tanned hides and skins processed outside the State and those processed within the State was held discriminatory under Article 304(a) because the relevant comparison is the goods' nature and kind, not whether tax was already paid at an earlier stage. The rule's statutory source did not save it, since a provision made under enabling power remains unconstitutional if its practical operation discriminates against imported goods. The substituted rule also did not revive the earlier rule once the old rule had ceased to exist. The impugned rule was therefore invalid and could not sustain the assessment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 22 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99624