<?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>1952 (8) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127197</link>
    <description>A taxing statute may validly authorise rules fixing the point of levy and the person liable, provided the Legislature has declared the policy, retained control over the delegated framework, and the resulting classification has a rational basis. Entry 48 of the Provincial List was construed broadly to support a tax on the sale transaction, including liability imposed on the purchaser where the statute so provides. The Court also applied Article 14 principles of permissible classification and upheld special treatment of hides and skins as rational. Rule 16(5) was held ultra vires because it conflicted with Section 5(vi) and could create multiple taxation for unlicensed dealers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:42:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (8) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127197</link>
      <description>A taxing statute may validly authorise rules fixing the point of levy and the person liable, provided the Legislature has declared the policy, retained control over the delegated framework, and the resulting classification has a rational basis. Entry 48 of the Provincial List was construed broadly to support a tax on the sale transaction, including liability imposed on the purchaser where the statute so provides. The Court also applied Article 14 principles of permissible classification and upheld special treatment of hides and skins as rational. Rule 16(5) was held ultra vires because it conflicted with Section 5(vi) and could create multiple taxation for unlicensed dealers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>