<?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>1977 (8) TMI 140 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101596</link>
    <description>A State law regulating sales tax may validly impose punitive consequences for unauthorised collection by dealers as an ancillary incident of the taxing power. Section 37(1) was upheld as within legislative competence, but only on a narrow construction limiting forfeiture to sums actually collected and retained, not amounts already refunded or repayable. Section 46, prohibiting collection of tax where none was due or where collection exceeded the lawful amount, was also upheld as a valid enforcement measure. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) failed because the scheme provided notice and inquiry before forfeiture or penalty, and the forfeiture was treated as a lawful, procedurally fair penal consequence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 17:11:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (8) TMI 140 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101596</link>
      <description>A State law regulating sales tax may validly impose punitive consequences for unauthorised collection by dealers as an ancillary incident of the taxing power. Section 37(1) was upheld as within legislative competence, but only on a narrow construction limiting forfeiture to sums actually collected and retained, not amounts already refunded or repayable. Section 46, prohibiting collection of tax where none was due or where collection exceeded the lawful amount, was also upheld as a valid enforcement measure. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) failed because the scheme provided notice and inquiry before forfeiture or penalty, and the forfeiture was treated as a lawful, procedurally fair penal consequence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>