<?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>1994 (5) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157864</link>
    <description>Retrospective exemption notifications under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were upheld because the statute expressly permitted exemptions or reductions to operate prospectively or retrospectively, and the impugned changes were treated as within that framework. The separate tax classification of appalam and vermicelli based on brand-name registration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act was also sustained because the distinction rested on a reasonable classification with an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the fiscal scheme. The differential treatment was therefore not found to violate article 14, and the tax notifications and classification scheme were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:56:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157864</link>
      <description>Retrospective exemption notifications under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were upheld because the statute expressly permitted exemptions or reductions to operate prospectively or retrospectively, and the impugned changes were treated as within that framework. The separate tax classification of appalam and vermicelli based on brand-name registration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act was also sustained because the distinction rested on a reasonable classification with an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the fiscal scheme. The differential treatment was therefore not found to violate article 14, and the tax notifications and classification scheme were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>