<?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 (12) TMI 175 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151523</link>
    <description>Sections 65 to 67 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 were analysed as a taxing framework with built-in safeguards, including initiation by the Samiti, prior approval, publication and objection procedures, and limited governmental supervision. The absence of a quantified maximum tax rate did not amount to excessive delegation because the statute supplied sufficient policy and control. A local tax on country liquor was also held to remain within competence notwithstanding exemption from sales tax under another enactment and prior auction of vends on fixed prices, since one fiscal regime did not bar a different authorised levy and no estoppel operates against sovereign taxing power. Equity was held to have no role in defeating a valid tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:58:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (12) TMI 175 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151523</link>
      <description>Sections 65 to 67 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 were analysed as a taxing framework with built-in safeguards, including initiation by the Samiti, prior approval, publication and objection procedures, and limited governmental supervision. The absence of a quantified maximum tax rate did not amount to excessive delegation because the statute supplied sufficient policy and control. A local tax on country liquor was also held to remain within competence notwithstanding exemption from sales tax under another enactment and prior auction of vends on fixed prices, since one fiscal regime did not bar a different authorised levy and no estoppel operates against sovereign taxing power. Equity was held to have no role in defeating a valid tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>