<?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 (3) TMI 308 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103548</link>
    <description>Taxation measures permit wider legislative classification than ordinary laws, and a distinction is valid if it is reasonable and has a rational nexus with the levy&#039;s object. Applying that principle, the five-kilometre belt treatment of theatres under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act was upheld because theatres within the belt were sufficiently comparable to theatres in corporation and special grade municipality areas. The plea based on legitimate expectation failed because prior arrangements did not create an enforceable bar to legislative change. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) also failed since the amendment only changed the tax collection method and did not impose an unconstitutional restraint on trade.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 16:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 308 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103548</link>
      <description>Taxation measures permit wider legislative classification than ordinary laws, and a distinction is valid if it is reasonable and has a rational nexus with the levy&#039;s object. Applying that principle, the five-kilometre belt treatment of theatres under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act was upheld because theatres within the belt were sufficiently comparable to theatres in corporation and special grade municipality areas. The plea based on legitimate expectation failed because prior arrangements did not create an enforceable bar to legislative change. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) also failed since the amendment only changed the tax collection method and did not impose an unconstitutional restraint on trade.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>