<?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>1967 (2) TMI 88 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145212</link>
    <description>Ground-nuts were examined for treatment as oil-seeds under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, with the common-parlance test applied to decide whether purchase tax could validly be levied; on that approach, the levy could not stand. Sales tax on edible oils under the 1954 notification was also considered in light of the need for Presidential assent under Article 286(3), and the earlier notification was treated as lacking constitutional support until cured later. The text further states that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available where the challenge goes to the assessing authority&#039;s jurisdiction, and that a penalty dependent on the disputed tax demands cannot survive once those demands fail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:06:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (2) TMI 88 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145212</link>
      <description>Ground-nuts were examined for treatment as oil-seeds under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, with the common-parlance test applied to decide whether purchase tax could validly be levied; on that approach, the levy could not stand. Sales tax on edible oils under the 1954 notification was also considered in light of the need for Presidential assent under Article 286(3), and the earlier notification was treated as lacking constitutional support until cured later. The text further states that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available where the challenge goes to the assessing authority&#039;s jurisdiction, and that a penalty dependent on the disputed tax demands cannot survive once those demands fail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>