<?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>1978 (7) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152342</link>
    <description>A validating statute can retrospectively sustain levy, assessment and collection of sales tax where it removes the defect identified by an earlier judgment and is enacted within legislative competence. The Delhi High Court held that the repeal and saving framework did not erase the earlier provisions for all purposes, and Parliament could use referential retrospective legislation to deem the amendment and withdrawal of exemptions valid. The constitutional challenge under Articles 141, 265 and 19 failed because the enactment altered the legal basis of the prior decision and did not establish an impermissible infringement of protected freedoms or an unconstitutional delegation. The writ petitions were dismissed and the revenue action upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:11:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (7) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152342</link>
      <description>A validating statute can retrospectively sustain levy, assessment and collection of sales tax where it removes the defect identified by an earlier judgment and is enacted within legislative competence. The Delhi High Court held that the repeal and saving framework did not erase the earlier provisions for all purposes, and Parliament could use referential retrospective legislation to deem the amendment and withdrawal of exemptions valid. The constitutional challenge under Articles 141, 265 and 19 failed because the enactment altered the legal basis of the prior decision and did not establish an impermissible infringement of protected freedoms or an unconstitutional delegation. The writ petitions were dismissed and the revenue action upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>