https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127677 The note explains that the groundnut purchase tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act was treated as a tax on the sale or purchase transaction, so the constitutional limit in Article 276(2) for taxes on professions or trades did not apply; objections to the turnover and assessment rules were also rejected because publication, legislative approval, and delegation requirements were satisfied. It further states that rebate under rule 18(2) was only a relief against tax actually borne, so constitutionally exempt oil sales could not be included in the turnover base for computing the deduction. The departmental construction of the rules was upheld. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:25:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127677 The note explains that the groundnut purchase tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act was treated as a tax on the sale or purchase transaction, so the constitutional limit in Article 276(2) for taxes on professions or trades did not apply; objections to the turnover and assessment rules were also rejected because publication, legislative approval, and delegation requirements were satisfied. It further states that rebate under rule 18(2) was only a relief against tax actually borne, so constitutionally exempt oil sales could not be included in the turnover base for computing the deduction. The departmental construction of the rules was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 25 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127677