<?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>1970 (11) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100740</link>
    <description>Entry 54 of List II permits State legislation on sales tax and includes only ancillary or incidental machinery needed to prevent tax evasion. Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act were treated as preventive machinery, but section 42(3) went further by authorising seizure, confiscation and penalty for goods in transit, including self-owned goods and personal luggage, merely for non-production of prescribed documents. That drastic confiscatory power was held to rest on an unwarranted assumption of completed intra-State sale and tax liability, and was not fairly comprehended within the sales tax field. The provision was therefore beyond legislative competence and invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (11) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100740</link>
      <description>Entry 54 of List II permits State legislation on sales tax and includes only ancillary or incidental machinery needed to prevent tax evasion. Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act were treated as preventive machinery, but section 42(3) went further by authorising seizure, confiscation and penalty for goods in transit, including self-owned goods and personal luggage, merely for non-production of prescribed documents. That drastic confiscatory power was held to rest on an unwarranted assumption of completed intra-State sale and tax liability, and was not fairly comprehended within the sales tax field. The provision was therefore beyond legislative competence and invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>