<?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>1975 (3) TMI 121 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151024</link>
    <description>Section 5A empowered the authority to fix the taxable point in a series of sales, and the notification for tyres and tubes operated prospectively from 1 July 1965 rather than only on stock held on 30 June 1965. The proviso did not offend article 14 because registered and unregistered dealers were not similarly situated under the Act, and the different treatment reflected that statutory distinction. Deletion of tyres and tubes from column 3 of the registration certificate only removed the deduction benefit; it did not cancel registration or alter the dealers&#039; status for the proviso. The challenge to the notification and assessment orders therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 15:15:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 121 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151024</link>
      <description>Section 5A empowered the authority to fix the taxable point in a series of sales, and the notification for tyres and tubes operated prospectively from 1 July 1965 rather than only on stock held on 30 June 1965. The proviso did not offend article 14 because registered and unregistered dealers were not similarly situated under the Act, and the different treatment reflected that statutory distinction. Deletion of tyres and tubes from column 3 of the registration certificate only removed the deduction benefit; it did not cancel registration or alter the dealers&#039; status for the proviso. The challenge to the notification and assessment orders therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>