<?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>1987 (4) TMI 474 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155762</link>
    <description>The Calcutta HC noted that entry tax on &quot;specified goods&quot; in the Schedule could apply to turmeric and allied items under the class &quot;spices&quot; as understood in common parlance, and taxability did not depend on their ultimate end-use. It held that the Schedule validly covered a general class or genus, so item-by-item specification of each spice was unnecessary. The challenge to the assessment as arbitrary failed because the point was not properly raised and statutory remedies were available. The constitutional challenge under Article 301 was also rejected, the levy not being shown to impose a direct restriction on trade.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:39:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 474 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155762</link>
      <description>The Calcutta HC noted that entry tax on &quot;specified goods&quot; in the Schedule could apply to turmeric and allied items under the class &quot;spices&quot; as understood in common parlance, and taxability did not depend on their ultimate end-use. It held that the Schedule validly covered a general class or genus, so item-by-item specification of each spice was unnecessary. The challenge to the assessment as arbitrary failed because the point was not properly raised and statutory remedies were available. The constitutional challenge under Article 301 was also rejected, the levy not being shown to impose a direct restriction on trade.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>