<?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>1983 (6) TMI 163 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153511</link>
    <description>Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act was upheld because delegating exemption power to the Government was treated as a normal incident of fiscal legislation and not excessive delegation or hostile discrimination. SRO No. 267 also survived article 14 scrutiny, as brick manufacturers were not shown to be similarly situated to tile manufacturers and the classification had a rational nexus to the policy of incentivising a developing industry. The levy of sales tax on bricks after 31 March 1977 was held valid because exemption was a concession that expired by its own terms, and liability revived automatically for later sales without creating retrospective taxation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:22:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (6) TMI 163 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153511</link>
      <description>Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act was upheld because delegating exemption power to the Government was treated as a normal incident of fiscal legislation and not excessive delegation or hostile discrimination. SRO No. 267 also survived article 14 scrutiny, as brick manufacturers were not shown to be similarly situated to tile manufacturers and the classification had a rational nexus to the policy of incentivising a developing industry. The levy of sales tax on bricks after 31 March 1977 was held valid because exemption was a concession that expired by its own terms, and liability revived automatically for later sales without creating retrospective taxation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>