https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157189 Section 5(3-C) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held not to create hostile discrimination merely because liability varied with the number of intra-State sales. The court found no de facto inequality and rejected Article 14 challenge, holding that hypothetical or incidental differences in tax impact do not make a taxing classification unconstitutional. It also held that the provision did not impose a direct barrier on inter-State trade and therefore did not attract Article 304(b) or require President's assent. The levy was upheld as a valid taxing provision and the writ petition was dismissed. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:19:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157189 Section 5(3-C) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was held not to create hostile discrimination merely because liability varied with the number of intra-State sales. The court found no de facto inequality and rejected Article 14 challenge, holding that hypothetical or incidental differences in tax impact do not make a taxing classification unconstitutional. It also held that the provision did not impose a direct barrier on inter-State trade and therefore did not attract Article 304(b) or require President's assent. The levy was upheld as a valid taxing provision and the writ petition was dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 16 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157189