https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100774 SC held that section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act validly delegated power to fix purchase tax rates because the Legislature had laid down policy and imposed an outer ceiling, leaving only administrative adjustment within defined limits. It also upheld the Explanation classifying purchases through licensed and unlicensed dealers, finding the distinction rationally connected to preventing tax evasion and ensuring effective tax administration, since licensed dealers were subject to record-keeping and disclosure obligations that unlicensed dealers did not share. The levy was therefore sustained, and the classification was not discriminatory under article 14. en-us Thu, 21 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100774 SC held that section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act validly delegated power to fix purchase tax rates because the Legislature had laid down policy and imposed an outer ceiling, leaving only administrative adjustment within defined limits. It also upheld the Explanation classifying purchases through licensed and unlicensed dealers, finding the distinction rationally connected to preventing tax evasion and ensuring effective tax administration, since licensed dealers were subject to record-keeping and disclosure obligations that unlicensed dealers did not share. The levy was therefore sustained, and the classification was not discriminatory under article 14. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 21 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100774