<?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>1994 (11) TMI 353 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103922</link>
    <description>A cess imposed on tea estates was treated as a tax on land under entry 49 of List II because the levy attached to the estate as a unit of land and was merely quantified by reference to green tea leaf yield. The measure of assessment did not change the character of the impost into a tax on production, and the doctrine of pith and substance was applied to sustain State competence. Central control under the Tea Act, 1953 and the Parliamentary excise levy did not exclude the State&#039;s taxing power, as the two levies operated in different fields. Retrospective validation of the amended levy was also upheld after the original defect was cured.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 16:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 353 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103922</link>
      <description>A cess imposed on tea estates was treated as a tax on land under entry 49 of List II because the levy attached to the estate as a unit of land and was merely quantified by reference to green tea leaf yield. The measure of assessment did not change the character of the impost into a tax on production, and the doctrine of pith and substance was applied to sustain State competence. Central control under the Tea Act, 1953 and the Parliamentary excise levy did not exclude the State&#039;s taxing power, as the two levies operated in different fields. Retrospective validation of the amended levy was also upheld after the original defect was cured.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>