<?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>1967 (4) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100366</link>
    <description>Declared goods under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act could be taxed only at one stage, and the statutory scheme was held invalid because it did not fix a clear and certain point of levy; a refund mechanism could not cure the absence of a lawful initial levy, so the challenged assessments failed. A later notification could not sustain assessments for an earlier period after the amended definition of purchase had displaced the earlier notification, so those assessments also could not stand. The majority allowed the appeals and set aside the assessments. Sikri J., with Ramaswami J. agreeing, dissented on the one-stage levy issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100366</link>
      <description>Declared goods under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act could be taxed only at one stage, and the statutory scheme was held invalid because it did not fix a clear and certain point of levy; a refund mechanism could not cure the absence of a lawful initial levy, so the challenged assessments failed. A later notification could not sustain assessments for an earlier period after the amended definition of purchase had displaced the earlier notification, so those assessments also could not stand. The majority allowed the appeals and set aside the assessments. Sikri J., with Ramaswami J. agreeing, dissented on the one-stage levy issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>