<?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 781 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107207</link>
    <description>Sales tax on imported fabrics was treated as a distinct State levy under Entry 54 of List II, operating separately from customs duty and additional duties of excise. The court held that the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is only a charging measure linked to excise duty on like goods manufactured in India, and does not become excise duty itself. The Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 did not displace State taxing competence, and the classification between imported and indigenous fabrics was constitutionally permissible. The challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 286(3) and 304 failed, and the levy was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 781 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107207</link>
      <description>Sales tax on imported fabrics was treated as a distinct State levy under Entry 54 of List II, operating separately from customs duty and additional duties of excise. The court held that the additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is only a charging measure linked to excise duty on like goods manufactured in India, and does not become excise duty itself. The Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 did not displace State taxing competence, and the classification between imported and indigenous fabrics was constitutionally permissible. The challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 286(3) and 304 failed, and the levy was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>