<?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>1995 (12) TMI 358 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158471</link>
    <description>A turnover tax exemption notification was held unconstitutional because it exempted turnover tax generally while denying that benefit to goods received on consignment or branch transfer. The court treated the notification as law for constitutional scrutiny and found the classification discriminatory under Part XIII, especially Article 304(a), because it singled out a comparable class for adverse treatment without a valid constitutional basis. The distinction that such goods were not taxed at the place of origin was held irrelevant. The exception was therefore invalid under Article 304, while the exemption otherwise remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:31:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 358 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158471</link>
      <description>A turnover tax exemption notification was held unconstitutional because it exempted turnover tax generally while denying that benefit to goods received on consignment or branch transfer. The court treated the notification as law for constitutional scrutiny and found the classification discriminatory under Part XIII, especially Article 304(a), because it singled out a comparable class for adverse treatment without a valid constitutional basis. The distinction that such goods were not taxed at the place of origin was held irrelevant. The exception was therefore invalid under Article 304, while the exemption otherwise remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>