<?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>1961 (7) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128354</link>
    <description>On repeal and re-enactment, accrued rights and immunities under the earlier sales tax law continued unless the new statute showed a contrary intention. The article explains that tobacco had already been taxed at the purchase stage under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, and that protection against being taxed again on the same goods was preserved by the saving principle in the later general clauses law. The shift in the taxable point to the first sale under the new sales tax regime did not, by itself, extinguish that immunity. The attempted levy at the sale point was therefore not sustainable because the repeal did not abrogate the existing protection against double taxation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:46:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (7) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128354</link>
      <description>On repeal and re-enactment, accrued rights and immunities under the earlier sales tax law continued unless the new statute showed a contrary intention. The article explains that tobacco had already been taxed at the purchase stage under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, and that protection against being taxed again on the same goods was preserved by the saving principle in the later general clauses law. The shift in the taxable point to the first sale under the new sales tax regime did not, by itself, extinguish that immunity. The attempted levy at the sale point was therefore not sustainable because the repeal did not abrogate the existing protection against double taxation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>