<?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>1970 (2) TMI 111 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149811</link>
    <description>Check-post, detention, confiscation and security provisions under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act were treated as more than mere regulatory controls because they directly burdened the movement of goods. The Court found them inconsistent with the freedom of trade under Article 301 and not saved by Article 304(b) in the absence of the required sanction. It also held that the confiscation and penalty machinery imposed disproportionate and unreasonable restrictions on property and trade rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g), given the harsh consequences and inadequate safeguards. The rule&#039;s possible overreach beyond the Act was noted, but no final ruling was needed on that point.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 18:19:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (2) TMI 111 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149811</link>
      <description>Check-post, detention, confiscation and security provisions under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act were treated as more than mere regulatory controls because they directly burdened the movement of goods. The Court found them inconsistent with the freedom of trade under Article 301 and not saved by Article 304(b) in the absence of the required sanction. It also held that the confiscation and penalty machinery imposed disproportionate and unreasonable restrictions on property and trade rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g), given the harsh consequences and inadequate safeguards. The rule&#039;s possible overreach beyond the Act was noted, but no final ruling was needed on that point.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>