<?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>1973 (8) TMI 132 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150354</link>
    <description>Retrospective enlargement of the definition of &quot;business&quot; under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as a fresh imposition on past transactions rather than a mere validation of an existing levy. The amendment removed profit motive and brought in ancillary or incidental transactions, thereby widening the tax base and creating unexpected liability for prior conduct. That retrospective burden was held to be unreasonable under article 19(1)(f) and article 19(1)(g), not saved by article 19(5) or article 19(6). The same deeming effect also exposed past transactions to registration and penal consequences, which was held inconsistent with article 20.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 16:04:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (8) TMI 132 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150354</link>
      <description>Retrospective enlargement of the definition of &quot;business&quot; under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as a fresh imposition on past transactions rather than a mere validation of an existing levy. The amendment removed profit motive and brought in ancillary or incidental transactions, thereby widening the tax base and creating unexpected liability for prior conduct. That retrospective burden was held to be unreasonable under article 19(1)(f) and article 19(1)(g), not saved by article 19(5) or article 19(6). The same deeming effect also exposed past transactions to registration and penal consequences, which was held inconsistent with article 20.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>