<?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>2007 (9) TMI 530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125598</link>
    <description>Imported goods may retain their character as imported goods for State sales tax classification even after customs clearance, because customs concepts do not control the State&#039;s taxing power over sales within the State. A higher sales tax rate on imported goods than on comparable domestically manufactured goods was treated as a permissible reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, not hostile discrimination, and was not shown to violate Articles 14 or 301 to 304. The GATT framework did not override domestic law or require Presidential assent under Article 304(b) on these facts. The levy and connected orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2014 16:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 530 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125598</link>
      <description>Imported goods may retain their character as imported goods for State sales tax classification even after customs clearance, because customs concepts do not control the State&#039;s taxing power over sales within the State. A higher sales tax rate on imported goods than on comparable domestically manufactured goods was treated as a permissible reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, not hostile discrimination, and was not shown to violate Articles 14 or 301 to 304. The GATT framework did not override domestic law or require Presidential assent under Article 304(b) on these facts. The levy and connected orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>