https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152239 An agreement made by a sovereign ruler was treated as a contractual arrangement based on mutual consent, not as law having sovereign force, so it could not continue as law under transitional constitutional provisions. The claimed exemption from excise duty and income-tax therefore did not survive against the Union or the successor State, because Articles 295 and 372 continued only existing rights or instruments having the force of law and did not bar competent taxation. In the absence of an enforceable exemption, the claims for refund and protection under Articles 19 and 31 also failed. en-us Tue, 27 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152239 An agreement made by a sovereign ruler was treated as a contractual arrangement based on mutual consent, not as law having sovereign force, so it could not continue as law under transitional constitutional provisions. The claimed exemption from excise duty and income-tax therefore did not survive against the Union or the successor State, because Articles 295 and 372 continued only existing rights or instruments having the force of law and did not bar competent taxation. In the absence of an enforceable exemption, the claims for refund and protection under Articles 19 and 31 also failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 27 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152239