<?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>1971 (10) TMI 103 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150225</link>
    <description>Tendu leaves could validly be excluded from the concessional raw material regime and taxed separately because the special State monopoly created a real distinction, giving the classification an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the fiscal scheme. The levy was also upheld against objections under Articles 301, 304 and 286(3), as sales tax on tendu leaves was not a direct restriction on trade and did not violate the central enactments governing declared goods. Alleged inconsistency between the definition and charging provisions, and the expanded definition of dealer, did not invalidate the amendment because the legislative intent to tax forest department transactions was clear.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 14:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (10) TMI 103 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150225</link>
      <description>Tendu leaves could validly be excluded from the concessional raw material regime and taxed separately because the special State monopoly created a real distinction, giving the classification an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the fiscal scheme. The levy was also upheld against objections under Articles 301, 304 and 286(3), as sales tax on tendu leaves was not a direct restriction on trade and did not violate the central enactments governing declared goods. Alleged inconsistency between the definition and charging provisions, and the expanded definition of dealer, did not invalidate the amendment because the legislative intent to tax forest department transactions was clear.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>