https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158334 Differential tax treatment between Rajasthan dealers and dealers outside the State supplying goods to Government departments was upheld as a reasonable classification based on the situs and character of the sale, and it did not offend Article 14 or restrain trade under Article 301. The taxing regime could validly apply different rates to different classes of dealers and transactions, and the challenged circular instructions did not create real discrimination. On reassessment, notices issued under Section 12 were treated as valid where goods had been assessed at a concessional rate contrary to the exemption notification, particularly because the notification excluded furniture and office equipment. The factual question whether the goods sold fell within the exclusion list was left for determination by the assessing authority. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:34:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158334 Differential tax treatment between Rajasthan dealers and dealers outside the State supplying goods to Government departments was upheld as a reasonable classification based on the situs and character of the sale, and it did not offend Article 14 or restrain trade under Article 301. The taxing regime could validly apply different rates to different classes of dealers and transactions, and the challenged circular instructions did not create real discrimination. On reassessment, notices issued under Section 12 were treated as valid where goods had been assessed at a concessional rate contrary to the exemption notification, particularly because the notification excluded furniture and office equipment. The factual question whether the goods sold fell within the exclusion list was left for determination by the assessing authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 01 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158334