<?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>1959 (3) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127811</link>
    <description>Validation legislation cured the prior defect in the single-point sales tax notification by treating it as validly issued under the amended statutory power, thereby sustaining the notification. Section 3A validly delegated limited authority to select commodities for single-point taxation because the Legislature retained the tax policy, single-point character and maximum rate; the levy was upheld. Selective application to specified commodities reflected economic and administrative considerations and constituted permissible classification, so section 3A did not violate Article 14. Placing copies before the Legislative Assembly and supplying them to members satisfied the statutory laying requirement. The challenge to the assessment, notification and levy failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:40:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (3) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127811</link>
      <description>Validation legislation cured the prior defect in the single-point sales tax notification by treating it as validly issued under the amended statutory power, thereby sustaining the notification. Section 3A validly delegated limited authority to select commodities for single-point taxation because the Legislature retained the tax policy, single-point character and maximum rate; the levy was upheld. Selective application to specified commodities reflected economic and administrative considerations and constituted permissible classification, so section 3A did not violate Article 14. Placing copies before the Legislative Assembly and supplying them to members satisfied the statutory laying requirement. The challenge to the assessment, notification and levy failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>