https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152443 The third proviso to section 27(1)(a)(ii) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a reasonable regulatory measure because it only authorised scrutiny of the genuineness of claimed sales deductions, including the purchaser's financial capacity, business profile and disposal of goods, to detect sham transactions. The court treated this as a codification of an already recognised power of tax scrutiny, not an arbitrary restraint on trade. The retrospective operation of the proviso was also sustained because the clause was construed as substantive in nature despite its form as a proviso, and the corresponding Haryana and Punjab provisions were in pari materia. Both constitutional and retrospectivity challenges therefore failed. en-us Thu, 01 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:54:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152443 The third proviso to section 27(1)(a)(ii) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act was upheld as a reasonable regulatory measure because it only authorised scrutiny of the genuineness of claimed sales deductions, including the purchaser's financial capacity, business profile and disposal of goods, to detect sham transactions. The court treated this as a codification of an already recognised power of tax scrutiny, not an arbitrary restraint on trade. The retrospective operation of the proviso was also sustained because the clause was construed as substantive in nature despite its form as a proviso, and the corresponding Haryana and Punjab provisions were in pari materia. Both constitutional and retrospectivity challenges therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 01 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152443