<?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 (4) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128824</link>
    <description>A statutory single-point sales tax concession under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was available only to dealers who complied with the prescribed licensing and other conditions. The court held that denying the concession to an unlicensed dealer and applying the multi-point levy did not amount to hostile discrimination under Article 14, because licensed and unlicensed dealers were not similarly situated for the purpose of the concession. Non-compliance with the statutory prerequisites justified assessment under section 3(1) read with section 6-A, and the concession in section 5(vi) could not be claimed as of right. The writ challenge failed and the assessment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:22:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (4) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128824</link>
      <description>A statutory single-point sales tax concession under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was available only to dealers who complied with the prescribed licensing and other conditions. The court held that denying the concession to an unlicensed dealer and applying the multi-point levy did not amount to hostile discrimination under Article 14, because licensed and unlicensed dealers were not similarly situated for the purpose of the concession. Non-compliance with the statutory prerequisites justified assessment under section 3(1) read with section 6-A, and the concession in section 5(vi) could not be claimed as of right. The writ challenge failed and the assessment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>