<?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>1991 (7) TMI 338 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157118</link>
    <description>A higher sales tax on cooked food served in or supplied from air-conditioned hotels, restaurants, refreshment rooms, clubs and eating houses was upheld as a valid fiscal classification under Article 14 because it was based on a real distinction with a rational nexus to the revenue object. The levy was treated as sales tax on cooked food, not a luxury tax, and the challenge based on double taxation failed because the sales tax and luxury tax operated on different subjects and purposes. The purchaser-identification requirement in cash memos for transactions above Rs. 20 was also upheld, as it applied generally to specified dealers and did not impose an unreasonable restriction on business under Article 19(1)(g).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:56:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 338 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157118</link>
      <description>A higher sales tax on cooked food served in or supplied from air-conditioned hotels, restaurants, refreshment rooms, clubs and eating houses was upheld as a valid fiscal classification under Article 14 because it was based on a real distinction with a rational nexus to the revenue object. The levy was treated as sales tax on cooked food, not a luxury tax, and the challenge based on double taxation failed because the sales tax and luxury tax operated on different subjects and purposes. The purchaser-identification requirement in cash memos for transactions above Rs. 20 was also upheld, as it applied generally to specified dealers and did not impose an unreasonable restriction on business under Article 19(1)(g).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>