<?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 (10) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100775</link>
    <description>A notification under section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 levying purchase tax on oil-seeds was upheld because section 3-AA did not exclude its operation. Section 3-AA applied to a single-point sales tax on specified goods and its non obstante clause was confined to sections 3 and 3-A, while section 3-D was a later provision authorising purchase tax on first purchases of notified goods. Section 3-D(4) further stated that, once notification issued, no tax could be levied under any other section for the notified goods. The statutory scheme therefore gave section 3-D(4) overriding effect, and the challenge to the levy failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (10) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100775</link>
      <description>A notification under section 3-D(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 levying purchase tax on oil-seeds was upheld because section 3-AA did not exclude its operation. Section 3-AA applied to a single-point sales tax on specified goods and its non obstante clause was confined to sections 3 and 3-A, while section 3-D was a later provision authorising purchase tax on first purchases of notified goods. Section 3-D(4) further stated that, once notification issued, no tax could be levied under any other section for the notified goods. The statutory scheme therefore gave section 3-D(4) overriding effect, and the challenge to the levy failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>