<?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>1966 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144136</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the levy of surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, ruling that the surcharge constituted a tax on the aggregate of sales effected by the dealer when their turnover exceeded a certain threshold. It clarified that the surcharge was a legitimate enhancement of the sales tax and not a tax on tax, emphasizing that the ultimate economic burden falls on the consumer. The court also affirmed the State Legislature&#039;s authority to enact the Act under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, rejecting arguments to the contrary. Additionally, it clarified that Article 271 of the Constitution does not grant State Legislatures the power to impose a surcharge, which is reserved for Parliament for Union purposes. The court dismissed the contention regarding the requirement of a previous recommendation by the Governor for moving a money bill, citing Article 255 of the Constitution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:42:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144136</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the levy of surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, ruling that the surcharge constituted a tax on the aggregate of sales effected by the dealer when their turnover exceeded a certain threshold. It clarified that the surcharge was a legitimate enhancement of the sales tax and not a tax on tax, emphasizing that the ultimate economic burden falls on the consumer. The court also affirmed the State Legislature&#039;s authority to enact the Act under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, rejecting arguments to the contrary. Additionally, it clarified that Article 271 of the Constitution does not grant State Legislatures the power to impose a surcharge, which is reserved for Parliament for Union purposes. The court dismissed the contention regarding the requirement of a previous recommendation by the Governor for moving a money bill, citing Article 255 of the Constitution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=144136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>