<?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>1957 (3) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127598</link>
    <description>Check-post and declaration requirements for transporting goods were upheld as a reasonable anti-evasion measure: the classification between rail and road transport was held rational because private motor transport created a legitimate risk of sales tax evasion, so Article 14 was not violated. The system was also treated as a regulatory safeguard, not a prohibition on inter-State trade, because carriers remained free to do business and only had to furnish prescribed particulars, so Article 304 was not offended. The notification on fine for breach was valid because it merely reflected the penal consequence already authorised by the parent Act and did not create a new offence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 03 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:23:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (3) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127598</link>
      <description>Check-post and declaration requirements for transporting goods were upheld as a reasonable anti-evasion measure: the classification between rail and road transport was held rational because private motor transport created a legitimate risk of sales tax evasion, so Article 14 was not violated. The system was also treated as a regulatory safeguard, not a prohibition on inter-State trade, because carriers remained free to do business and only had to furnish prescribed particulars, so Article 304 was not offended. The notification on fine for breach was valid because it merely reflected the penal consequence already authorised by the parent Act and did not create a new offence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 03 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>