<?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 (5) TMI 32 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127608</link>
    <description>A notice clause tied to amendment of a tax schedule was held not to control the effective date of a separate notification enhancing the tax rate, so three months&#039; notice was not required before the higher rate became operative. The levy was also upheld against constitutional challenge because classification of dealers by business extent and turnover satisfied the test of reasonable fiscal classification: it rested on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the statute&#039;s taxing object. Differential treatment based on turnover was treated as administratively workable and not discriminatory. The challenge to the notification and the levy therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:47:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (5) TMI 32 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127608</link>
      <description>A notice clause tied to amendment of a tax schedule was held not to control the effective date of a separate notification enhancing the tax rate, so three months&#039; notice was not required before the higher rate became operative. The levy was also upheld against constitutional challenge because classification of dealers by business extent and turnover satisfied the test of reasonable fiscal classification: it rested on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the statute&#039;s taxing object. Differential treatment based on turnover was treated as administratively workable and not discriminatory. The challenge to the notification and the levy therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>