<?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 (4) TMI 70 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145228</link>
    <description>The sales tax exemption for goods on which duty is lawfully leviable under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 did not extend to denatured spirit. Excise duty under the constitutional scheme and section 3(6-b) of the Punjab Excise Act was confined to alcoholic liquors for human consumption, and denatured spirit did not fall within that category or within Entry 51 of List II. The levy of Rs. 3 per imperial gallon therefore could not be treated as a duty for the purpose of item 40 of the Second Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi. The challenge to the charge as a fee or otherwise was also unsupported on the material placed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:02:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (4) TMI 70 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145228</link>
      <description>The sales tax exemption for goods on which duty is lawfully leviable under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 did not extend to denatured spirit. Excise duty under the constitutional scheme and section 3(6-b) of the Punjab Excise Act was confined to alcoholic liquors for human consumption, and denatured spirit did not fall within that category or within Entry 51 of List II. The levy of Rs. 3 per imperial gallon therefore could not be treated as a duty for the purpose of item 40 of the Second Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to Delhi. The challenge to the charge as a fee or otherwise was also unsupported on the material placed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>