<?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>1969 (4) TMI 91 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148471</link>
    <description>State sales tax on raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins was upheld as a valid levy on intra-State sales, since the constitutional and statutory restrictions on declared goods did not bar taxation within the State or amount to a restraint on inter-State trade. The text treats raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins as distinct commodities for sales tax purposes, supporting different taxable points under the Schedule. It also states that differential points and rates did not, by themselves, violate equality principles because unequal treatment was not shown between similarly situated goods or dealers, though reassessment on individual facts remained possible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (4) TMI 91 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148471</link>
      <description>State sales tax on raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins was upheld as a valid levy on intra-State sales, since the constitutional and statutory restrictions on declared goods did not bar taxation within the State or amount to a restraint on inter-State trade. The text treats raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins as distinct commodities for sales tax purposes, supporting different taxable points under the Schedule. It also states that differential points and rates did not, by themselves, violate equality principles because unequal treatment was not shown between similarly situated goods or dealers, though reassessment on individual facts remained possible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>