<?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>1976 (11) TMI 161 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101307</link>
    <description>Item 7(a) of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was construed as confined to intra-State sales of raw hides and skins, because the charging scheme referred to purchase in the State and the point of last purchase in the State; any ambiguity was resolved to preserve constitutional validity. Item 7(b), which taxed dressed hides and skins at a different point and rate, was treated as a rational classification reflecting their higher price and the prior tax incidence on local raw hides and skins. On that reasoning, the article states that no actual discrimination under Article 304(a) was established and the levy was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 161 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101307</link>
      <description>Item 7(a) of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was construed as confined to intra-State sales of raw hides and skins, because the charging scheme referred to purchase in the State and the point of last purchase in the State; any ambiguity was resolved to preserve constitutional validity. Item 7(b), which taxed dressed hides and skins at a different point and rate, was treated as a rational classification reflecting their higher price and the prior tax incidence on local raw hides and skins. On that reasoning, the article states that no actual discrimination under Article 304(a) was established and the levy was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101307</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>