<?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>1964 (3) TMI 55 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99739</link>
    <description>A retrospective validating enactment may lawfully clarify the scope of an exemption notification and remove its benefit where the Legislature is competent to do so. The Court held that the Orissa Sales Tax Validation Act, 1961 validly confined the exemption to persons who themselves manufactured ornaments or ran manufactories, and that this classification was reasonable because traders who merely supplied gold and sold finished ornaments were not similarly situated. The provision was also held not to violate Article 19(1)(g), since retrospective operation is not invalid merely because it is onerous and the measure served a public fiscal purpose. The validating provision was therefore upheld, and the claimed exemption was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (3) TMI 55 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99739</link>
      <description>A retrospective validating enactment may lawfully clarify the scope of an exemption notification and remove its benefit where the Legislature is competent to do so. The Court held that the Orissa Sales Tax Validation Act, 1961 validly confined the exemption to persons who themselves manufactured ornaments or ran manufactories, and that this classification was reasonable because traders who merely supplied gold and sold finished ornaments were not similarly situated. The provision was also held not to violate Article 19(1)(g), since retrospective operation is not invalid merely because it is onerous and the measure served a public fiscal purpose. The validating provision was therefore upheld, and the claimed exemption was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>