<?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>2002 (5) TMI 639 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105245</link>
    <description>A voluntarily opted composition scheme for works-contract taxation may validly use a simplified levy based on the contract consideration as an alternative to regular assessment, because it operates within the legislative scheme and does not exceed legislative competence. The challenge to section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act therefore failed. Retrospective validation of the composition provision was also upheld, because retrospective taxation is not unconstitutional merely by reason of retrospectivity where legislative competence exists and no breach of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 265 is shown. The amendment was held valid, and the constitutional challenge to the levy and its retrospective effect failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 639 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105245</link>
      <description>A voluntarily opted composition scheme for works-contract taxation may validly use a simplified levy based on the contract consideration as an alternative to regular assessment, because it operates within the legislative scheme and does not exceed legislative competence. The challenge to section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act therefore failed. Retrospective validation of the composition provision was also upheld, because retrospective taxation is not unconstitutional merely by reason of retrospectivity where legislative competence exists and no breach of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 265 is shown. The amendment was held valid, and the constitutional challenge to the levy and its retrospective effect failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>