<?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>1956 (7) TMI 45 - ASSAM HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127649</link>
    <description>The Assam Sales Tax Act amendment and rule 80 were discussed for confining exemption to goods purchased for resale within the State and requiring a matching declaration. The Court treated that scheme as exposing protected inter-State trade to tax consequences and coercive enforcement, and held the challenged provisions invalid and unenforceable to the extent attacked under Article 286(2). It also accepted that the declaration requirement and prosecution risk materially burdened the freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), so the enforcement mechanism could not be sustained against the petitioner. Relief was granted by prohibiting enforcement of the impugned amendment and rule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:44:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (7) TMI 45 - ASSAM HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127649</link>
      <description>The Assam Sales Tax Act amendment and rule 80 were discussed for confining exemption to goods purchased for resale within the State and requiring a matching declaration. The Court treated that scheme as exposing protected inter-State trade to tax consequences and coercive enforcement, and held the challenged provisions invalid and unenforceable to the extent attacked under Article 286(2). It also accepted that the declaration requirement and prosecution risk materially burdened the freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), so the enforcement mechanism could not be sustained against the petitioner. Relief was granted by prohibiting enforcement of the impugned amendment and rule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>