<?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>1951 (7) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127131</link>
    <description>Excise duty and sales tax were treated as distinct imposts because they arise from different taxable events: excise attaches to manufacture or production, while sales tax attaches to the sale transaction. The constitutional scheme permits both levies to operate simultaneously, so the levy of sales tax in addition to excise duty on liquor transactions was legally valid. Separately, a licence fee paid for liquor, drug and opium shops was not deductible in computing net turnover because Rule 44 allows only deductions expressly listed in it, and the fee did not fall within any permitted category. The application therefore failed on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:04:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (7) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127131</link>
      <description>Excise duty and sales tax were treated as distinct imposts because they arise from different taxable events: excise attaches to manufacture or production, while sales tax attaches to the sale transaction. The constitutional scheme permits both levies to operate simultaneously, so the levy of sales tax in addition to excise duty on liquor transactions was legally valid. Separately, a licence fee paid for liquor, drug and opium shops was not deductible in computing net turnover because Rule 44 allows only deductions expressly listed in it, and the fee did not fall within any permitted category. The application therefore failed on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>