https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100509 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of sections 8(2), 8(2A), and 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, stating that differential tax rates in different states did not violate constitutional provisions. It clarified that excise duty should not be included in turnover for the Act and remanded the case to determine if disputed transactions were inter-State. Separate judgments emphasized the Act's role in preventing tax evasion and maintaining economic balance. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision and directing no costs. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100509 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of sections 8(2), 8(2A), and 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, stating that differential tax rates in different states did not violate constitutional provisions. It clarified that excise duty should not be included in turnover for the Act and remanded the case to determine if disputed transactions were inter-State. Separate judgments emphasized the Act's role in preventing tax evasion and maintaining economic balance. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision and directing no costs. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 18 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100509