<?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>1955 (4) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127378</link>
    <description>Printed handloom saris, quilt covers and bed-covers were held outside the exemption for &quot;cloth manufactured on handlooms&quot; because the material had been converted into finished articles for wearing or household use, not sold as cloth. The sales tax classification challenge also failed: State and specified public bodies were treated as a distinct class linked to the objective of promoting cottage industries, and the mere existence of exemption powers did not by itself create unconstitutional discrimination. The exemption machinery was treated as severable from the charging provisions, so any defect in the exemption clauses would not have invalidated the Act as a whole.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:13:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (4) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127378</link>
      <description>Printed handloom saris, quilt covers and bed-covers were held outside the exemption for &quot;cloth manufactured on handlooms&quot; because the material had been converted into finished articles for wearing or household use, not sold as cloth. The sales tax classification challenge also failed: State and specified public bodies were treated as a distinct class linked to the objective of promoting cottage industries, and the mere existence of exemption powers did not by itself create unconstitutional discrimination. The exemption machinery was treated as severable from the charging provisions, so any defect in the exemption clauses would not have invalidated the Act as a whole.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>