https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156415 A State sales tax provision that taxed the intra-State first sale or purchase scheme and postponed tax incidence on breach of a declaration was held to remain within the State's legislative competence under entry 54 of List II. It was not treated as taxing an inter-State or export transaction and was found consistent with article 286 and sections 3, 4, 5 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court also rejected the article 14 challenge, holding that the classification had a rational basis, and the article 19(1)(g) challenge, finding that the provision regulated tax incidence without prohibiting trade. The writ petition failed. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:38:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156415 A State sales tax provision that taxed the intra-State first sale or purchase scheme and postponed tax incidence on breach of a declaration was held to remain within the State's legislative competence under entry 54 of List II. It was not treated as taxing an inter-State or export transaction and was found consistent with article 286 and sections 3, 4, 5 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court also rejected the article 14 challenge, holding that the classification had a rational basis, and the article 19(1)(g) challenge, finding that the provision regulated tax incidence without prohibiting trade. The writ petition failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 30 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156415