<?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>1997 (1) TMI 459 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104222</link>
    <description>Transactions undertaken under levy and control orders remain sales for sales tax purposes where mutual assent is not totally excluded and some bargaining, choice, or acceptance survives; only a transaction that is in substance compulsory acquisition falls outside Entry 54. On that basis, procurement of foodgrains and distribution of fertilizers were treated as taxable sales, so the State had competence to levy tax. The challenge to Explanation II to Section 3-D(1) also failed because the retrospective fixation of the first taxable point was within legislative power, and the surcharge under Section 3-F was upheld as a valid classification based on economic capacity rather than an arbitrary discrimination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 459 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104222</link>
      <description>Transactions undertaken under levy and control orders remain sales for sales tax purposes where mutual assent is not totally excluded and some bargaining, choice, or acceptance survives; only a transaction that is in substance compulsory acquisition falls outside Entry 54. On that basis, procurement of foodgrains and distribution of fertilizers were treated as taxable sales, so the State had competence to levy tax. The challenge to Explanation II to Section 3-D(1) also failed because the retrospective fixation of the first taxable point was within legislative power, and the surcharge under Section 3-F was upheld as a valid classification based on economic capacity rather than an arbitrary discrimination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>