<?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>1971 (4) TMI 78 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100754</link>
    <description>Retrospective sales tax on jaggery and the removal of the minimum turnover limit were upheld because fiscal legislation may adopt a reasonable classification with greater latitude in tax matters; the jaggery-based distinction had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the legislative object, so the levy was not hit by article 14. Section 9, which exempted dealers who had not collected tax from retrospective liability, was also upheld because the distinction between dealers who had collected tax and those who had not was based on a relevant hardship-related consideration and was connected to the amendment&#039;s purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 78 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100754</link>
      <description>Retrospective sales tax on jaggery and the removal of the minimum turnover limit were upheld because fiscal legislation may adopt a reasonable classification with greater latitude in tax matters; the jaggery-based distinction had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the legislative object, so the levy was not hit by article 14. Section 9, which exempted dealers who had not collected tax from retrospective liability, was also upheld because the distinction between dealers who had collected tax and those who had not was based on a relevant hardship-related consideration and was connected to the amendment&#039;s purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>