<?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>1963 (2) TMI 36 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128686</link>
    <description>A purchase tax on goods intended for use in manufacture was upheld as a levy on the commercial transaction of purchase, not as an excise duty or colourable legislation. The Court also held that the earlier defect of excessive delegation in the rate-fixing provision could be cured by amendment, since the Legislature had competence over the subject and the charging framework remained intact. No breach of the statutory ceiling under the Central Sales Tax law or of Article 14 was established, and the contention that oil extraction was not manufacture did not affect validity because the tax was on purchase of raw material. The petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:38:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (2) TMI 36 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128686</link>
      <description>A purchase tax on goods intended for use in manufacture was upheld as a levy on the commercial transaction of purchase, not as an excise duty or colourable legislation. The Court also held that the earlier defect of excessive delegation in the rate-fixing provision could be cured by amendment, since the Legislature had competence over the subject and the charging framework remained intact. No breach of the statutory ceiling under the Central Sales Tax law or of Article 14 was established, and the contention that oil extraction was not manufacture did not affect validity because the tax was on purchase of raw material. The petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>