<?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 236 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152789</link>
    <description>Retrospective fiscal legislation may validly revive a repealed sales tax enactment if the legislature is competent at the time of enactment and the levy stays within constitutional limits. The Kerala legislation reviving the Madras General Sales Tax Act for earlier periods was upheld, and tax on specified past tea and rubber sales could be assessed and demanded under the revived scheme. Liability attached to dealers notwithstanding registration issues, and the claimed agricultural-operations exemption was rejected on the facts. The discrimination challenge also failed because the differential treatment reflected the constitutional position under article 286 rather than unconstitutional classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2013 18:50:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (7) TMI 236 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152789</link>
      <description>Retrospective fiscal legislation may validly revive a repealed sales tax enactment if the legislature is competent at the time of enactment and the levy stays within constitutional limits. The Kerala legislation reviving the Madras General Sales Tax Act for earlier periods was upheld, and tax on specified past tea and rubber sales could be assessed and demanded under the revived scheme. Liability attached to dealers notwithstanding registration issues, and the claimed agricultural-operations exemption was rejected on the facts. The discrimination challenge also failed because the differential treatment reflected the constitutional position under article 286 rather than unconstitutional classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>