<?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>1990 (8) TMI 337 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103343</link>
    <description>Sales of goods owned by the Union of India and sold by the Railways were held immune from State sales tax under Article 285(1) of the Constitution, because the levy operated on Union property and could not be sustained under State law. The issue whether the seller was a dealer under the State sales tax regime was treated as already concluded by earlier authority and was not re-examined. The constitutional protection against taxation of Union property therefore barred the impugned levy, and the tax demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 337 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103343</link>
      <description>Sales of goods owned by the Union of India and sold by the Railways were held immune from State sales tax under Article 285(1) of the Constitution, because the levy operated on Union property and could not be sustained under State law. The issue whether the seller was a dealer under the State sales tax regime was treated as already concluded by earlier authority and was not re-examined. The constitutional protection against taxation of Union property therefore barred the impugned levy, and the tax demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>