<?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>1980 (4) TMI 282 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153017</link>
    <description>Retrospective sales tax amendment excluding condensed milk from exemption was upheld as a rational tax classification; the State could validly tax condensed milk retrospectively, and the corresponding Central Sales Tax liability also followed. The constitutional challenges under Articles 14, 19 and 301 failed because taxation legislation enjoys wide latitude and the amendment concerned intra-State sales, not inter-State trade. The retrospective validation could also cure the basis of earlier assessments and the prior Full Bench view. However, a final writ mandamus already issued under Article 226 between the same parties remained binding and could not be displaced by ordinary validation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 282 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153017</link>
      <description>Retrospective sales tax amendment excluding condensed milk from exemption was upheld as a rational tax classification; the State could validly tax condensed milk retrospectively, and the corresponding Central Sales Tax liability also followed. The constitutional challenges under Articles 14, 19 and 301 failed because taxation legislation enjoys wide latitude and the amendment concerned intra-State sales, not inter-State trade. The retrospective validation could also cure the basis of earlier assessments and the prior Full Bench view. However, a final writ mandamus already issued under Article 226 between the same parties remained binding and could not be displaced by ordinary validation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>