<?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>1958 (4) TMI 103 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127805</link>
    <description>A conditional exemption under the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as valid where it applied only to specified dealers who obtained exemption certificates on payment of fees linked to turnover. The scheme was held to fall within the Government&#039;s power to exempt sales by specified dealers and to prescribe fees in lieu of tax, because the fee operated as capitalised tax rather than a mere administrative charge. The notification did not create a general exemption for all dealers in foodgrains; a dealer could either accept the conditional benefit or remain governed by the general charging provision. The challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:16:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (4) TMI 103 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127805</link>
      <description>A conditional exemption under the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as valid where it applied only to specified dealers who obtained exemption certificates on payment of fees linked to turnover. The scheme was held to fall within the Government&#039;s power to exempt sales by specified dealers and to prescribe fees in lieu of tax, because the fee operated as capitalised tax rather than a mere administrative charge. The notification did not create a general exemption for all dealers in foodgrains; a dealer could either accept the conditional benefit or remain governed by the general charging provision. The challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>