<?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>1977 (3) TMI 132 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151284</link>
    <description>A levy imposed by Panchayat Samitis on the sale of country liquor was upheld as a valid tax under the local self-government statute, because the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act operated in separate fields and an exemption under one enactment did not bar taxation under the other. The Court also rejected the objection of impermissible sub-delegation, holding that sections 65 to 67 formed a single statutory scheme with the Panchayat Samiti acting as the legislative delegate and the Government and Deputy Commissioner exercising control. The machinery notifications and rules were likewise sustained, since the liable vendors were identifiable from the proposal and failure to lay the rules before the Legislature did not invalidate them absent a statutory consequence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:46:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (3) TMI 132 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151284</link>
      <description>A levy imposed by Panchayat Samitis on the sale of country liquor was upheld as a valid tax under the local self-government statute, because the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act operated in separate fields and an exemption under one enactment did not bar taxation under the other. The Court also rejected the objection of impermissible sub-delegation, holding that sections 65 to 67 formed a single statutory scheme with the Panchayat Samiti acting as the legislative delegate and the Government and Deputy Commissioner exercising control. The machinery notifications and rules were likewise sustained, since the liable vendors were identifiable from the proposal and failure to lay the rules before the Legislature did not invalidate them absent a statutory consequence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>