<?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 (7) TMI 137 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151100</link>
    <description>A retrospective amendment to the definition of &quot;business&quot; under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was examined for constitutional validity. The court treated retrospective fiscal legislation as permissible in principle, but held that a fresh tax imposed for the first time on past transactions over an exceptionally long period, without a temporal limit and with practical hardship for dealers, amounted to an excessive and disproportionate restriction on Article 19(1)(f) and (g) rights. The same retrospectivity was not discriminatory under Article 14 because no hostile classification was shown. It also did not attract Article 20, as deeming tax liability backward could not create retrospective penal liability for non-registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 14:16:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (7) TMI 137 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151100</link>
      <description>A retrospective amendment to the definition of &quot;business&quot; under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was examined for constitutional validity. The court treated retrospective fiscal legislation as permissible in principle, but held that a fresh tax imposed for the first time on past transactions over an exceptionally long period, without a temporal limit and with practical hardship for dealers, amounted to an excessive and disproportionate restriction on Article 19(1)(f) and (g) rights. The same retrospectivity was not discriminatory under Article 14 because no hostile classification was shown. It also did not attract Article 20, as deeming tax liability backward could not create retrospective penal liability for non-registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>