https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158080 An Explanation to section 2(26) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 denied resale treatment to sales by dealers holding or entitled to use a trade mark or patent, and the discussion treated this as a sales tax classification rather than regulation of intellectual property. It states that the measure fell within the State's taxing power under the sales tax field and remained valid on pith and substance despite incidental impact on trade mark or patent rights. The article also notes that a taxing levy is not, by itself, a restriction on trade under articles 301 and 304(b), that the classification was considered rational for fiscal purposes, and that amendment of a single-point levy into a double-point scheme was treated as a permissible legislative change. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:14:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158080 An Explanation to section 2(26) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 denied resale treatment to sales by dealers holding or entitled to use a trade mark or patent, and the discussion treated this as a sales tax classification rather than regulation of intellectual property. It states that the measure fell within the State's taxing power under the sales tax field and remained valid on pith and substance despite incidental impact on trade mark or patent rights. The article also notes that a taxing levy is not, by itself, a restriction on trade under articles 301 and 304(b), that the classification was considered rational for fiscal purposes, and that amendment of a single-point levy into a double-point scheme was treated as a permissible legislative change. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 07 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158080