<?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 (5) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151303</link>
    <description>The amended sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 were upheld as within the State Legislature&#039;s competence. The provision was treated as a measure to prevent tax evasion, operating only where there was a recorded finding of an attempt to evade tax and the goods were meant for trade without proper and genuine documents. Such detention and penalty were held to be incidental and ancillary to the power to levy sales tax under entry 54 of List II, and not repugnant to the scheme of the Act, because they did not require recovery of tax before the taxable event. The vires challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:03:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (5) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151303</link>
      <description>The amended sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 14-B of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 were upheld as within the State Legislature&#039;s competence. The provision was treated as a measure to prevent tax evasion, operating only where there was a recorded finding of an attempt to evade tax and the goods were meant for trade without proper and genuine documents. Such detention and penalty were held to be incidental and ancillary to the power to levy sales tax under entry 54 of List II, and not repugnant to the scheme of the Act, because they did not require recovery of tax before the taxable event. The vires challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>