<?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>1976 (9) TMI 156 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151362</link>
    <description>Chillies were held exigible to purchase tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act because the record did not establish that the dealers handled only green chillies, and dried chillies were not excluded merely because vegetables appeared in Schedule B when chillies were expressly listed for purchase tax in Schedule C. The constitutional challenge to section 31 also failed: the Act was treated as a complete tax code, and the requirement of prior public notice before adding or deleting goods supplied sufficient policy guidance and safeguards to prevent excessive delegation. The petitions were dismissed and both the levy and the delegation were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:02:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 156 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151362</link>
      <description>Chillies were held exigible to purchase tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act because the record did not establish that the dealers handled only green chillies, and dried chillies were not excluded merely because vegetables appeared in Schedule B when chillies were expressly listed for purchase tax in Schedule C. The constitutional challenge to section 31 also failed: the Act was treated as a complete tax code, and the requirement of prior public notice before adding or deleting goods supplied sufficient policy guidance and safeguards to prevent excessive delegation. The petitions were dismissed and both the levy and the delegation were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>