https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150048 Betel-nut sales were not entitled to nil tax under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 because taxation at a specified stage under State law is not exemption from tax generally. After the retrospective amendments to sections 6 and 9, inter-State sales remained taxable even though the commodity was not liable to intra-State tax under the State law. The constitutional challenge under articles 301 and 14 also failed, as the levy was treated as a valid incidence on inter-State trade and differential treatment of inter-State dealers was not discriminatory. Rule 11 of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958 was upheld as intra vires, and the penalty for late filing of returns was sustained. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2013 12:01:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150048 Betel-nut sales were not entitled to nil tax under section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 because taxation at a specified stage under State law is not exemption from tax generally. After the retrospective amendments to sections 6 and 9, inter-State sales remained taxable even though the commodity was not liable to intra-State tax under the State law. The constitutional challenge under articles 301 and 14 also failed, as the levy was treated as a valid incidence on inter-State trade and differential treatment of inter-State dealers was not discriminatory. Rule 11 of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958 was upheld as intra vires, and the penalty for late filing of returns was sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150048