<?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>1960 (1) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127977</link>
    <description>The Validation Act was treated as curing the constitutional impediment under Article 286(2) and validating State sales tax levies on inter-State sales during the relevant period, so the exemption granted to the dealer could not stand. The explanation relating to delivery for consumption within the State was held not to exhaustively define intra-State sales; it identified only one class of taxable sales under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, read with section 2(h) and section 22. The narrower contention that only such deliveries were taxable was rejected, and the revenue&#039;s revision petitions succeeded while the dealer&#039;s revision petitions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:21:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (1) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127977</link>
      <description>The Validation Act was treated as curing the constitutional impediment under Article 286(2) and validating State sales tax levies on inter-State sales during the relevant period, so the exemption granted to the dealer could not stand. The explanation relating to delivery for consumption within the State was held not to exhaustively define intra-State sales; it identified only one class of taxable sales under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, read with section 2(h) and section 22. The narrower contention that only such deliveries were taxable was rejected, and the revenue&#039;s revision petitions succeeded while the dealer&#039;s revision petitions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>