<?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>1990 (2) TMI 286 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156124</link>
    <description>After the Forty-sixth Constitutional Amendment, supply of food and drinks in hotels, restaurants and eating-houses was treated as a deemed sale for sales tax purposes, so section 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, read with the amended definitions, was sufficient to authorise the levy. Clause (29A)(f) of article 366 was held to remove the earlier bar based on the Sale of Goods Act concept of sale and entry 54 of List II, and the service element was not required to be excluded. A turnover-based classification under the impugned Government Order was upheld as a rational fiscal distinction and not a violation of article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:42:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 286 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156124</link>
      <description>After the Forty-sixth Constitutional Amendment, supply of food and drinks in hotels, restaurants and eating-houses was treated as a deemed sale for sales tax purposes, so section 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, read with the amended definitions, was sufficient to authorise the levy. Clause (29A)(f) of article 366 was held to remove the earlier bar based on the Sale of Goods Act concept of sale and entry 54 of List II, and the service element was not required to be excluded. A turnover-based classification under the impugned Government Order was upheld as a rational fiscal distinction and not a violation of article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>