https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128074 Taxing power was treated as a distinct sovereign power, so a sales tax on toddy did not violate Article 19(1)(g) unless it was so excessive as to extinguish the trade right itself; the challenge failed because the levy was not shown to be confiscatory. The measure was also held not to offend Article 301, because its pith and substance was taxation of sales turnover rather than regulation or impediment of trade movement; the proviso to Article 304(b) therefore was not attracted and absence of Presidential sanction did not invalidate the law. The objection based on Article 207 was likewise rejected, and the amendment was upheld as constitutionally valid. en-us Tue, 15 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:15:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128074 Taxing power was treated as a distinct sovereign power, so a sales tax on toddy did not violate Article 19(1)(g) unless it was so excessive as to extinguish the trade right itself; the challenge failed because the levy was not shown to be confiscatory. The measure was also held not to offend Article 301, because its pith and substance was taxation of sales turnover rather than regulation or impediment of trade movement; the proviso to Article 304(b) therefore was not attracted and absence of Presidential sanction did not invalidate the law. The objection based on Article 207 was likewise rejected, and the amendment was upheld as constitutionally valid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 15 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128074