<?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 (4) TMI 275 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156825</link>
    <description>An ayurvedic preparation made according to recognised texts was treated as a spirituous medicinal preparation because it contained more than 12% alcohol by volume, bringing it within item 67 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act schedule and attracting sales tax under that entry. The Court also held that taxation must rest on a rational classification: the mere presence of higher alcoholic content did not justify singling out this ayurvedic medicine for tax while other exempt medicinal preparations remained untaxed. Differential treatment on that basis was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14, so the assessments could not be sustained and the turnover required reassessment on the same footing as exempt ayurvedic medicines.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:11:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 275 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156825</link>
      <description>An ayurvedic preparation made according to recognised texts was treated as a spirituous medicinal preparation because it contained more than 12% alcohol by volume, bringing it within item 67 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act schedule and attracting sales tax under that entry. The Court also held that taxation must rest on a rational classification: the mere presence of higher alcoholic content did not justify singling out this ayurvedic medicine for tax while other exempt medicinal preparations remained untaxed. Differential treatment on that basis was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14, so the assessments could not be sustained and the turnover required reassessment on the same footing as exempt ayurvedic medicines.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>