<?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>1992 (10) TMI 237 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103532</link>
    <description>A State Legislature competent to tax sales or purchases may retrospectively validate an additional sales tax and expressly override an earlier single-point levy scheme. The validating enactment was upheld because it operated with a non obstante clause, applied on gross turnover at multiple points, and cured the defect identified in earlier proceedings. An earlier government undertaking did not bar reliance on the validating law, as the retrospective amendment removed the basis for refund. The assessment challenge also failed because the machinery provisions of the principal Act applied mutatis mutandis to the additional levy, making separate delegation unnecessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 17:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 237 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103532</link>
      <description>A State Legislature competent to tax sales or purchases may retrospectively validate an additional sales tax and expressly override an earlier single-point levy scheme. The validating enactment was upheld because it operated with a non obstante clause, applied on gross turnover at multiple points, and cured the defect identified in earlier proceedings. An earlier government undertaking did not bar reliance on the validating law, as the retrospective amendment removed the basis for refund. The assessment challenge also failed because the machinery provisions of the principal Act applied mutatis mutandis to the additional levy, making separate delegation unnecessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>