<?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 (2) TMI 418 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158504</link>
    <description>Turnover tax on tea sold by private treaty under section 6B was treated as a sales tax within the State&#039;s legislative power, and the levy was not confiscatory merely because the dealer could not pass it on or because its incidence increased. The exclusion of auction sales from tax under rule 3(2A) was upheld because auction sales and private treaty sales formed a real and rational classification linked to the policy of encouraging auction-based tea trade, so article 14 was not violated. The amended rates and reduced exemption threshold were also sustained, as the burden on trade was only indirect and no breach of articles 19(1)(g), 300A, 301 or 304 was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:44:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 418 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158504</link>
      <description>Turnover tax on tea sold by private treaty under section 6B was treated as a sales tax within the State&#039;s legislative power, and the levy was not confiscatory merely because the dealer could not pass it on or because its incidence increased. The exclusion of auction sales from tax under rule 3(2A) was upheld because auction sales and private treaty sales formed a real and rational classification linked to the policy of encouraging auction-based tea trade, so article 14 was not violated. The amended rates and reduced exemption threshold were also sustained, as the burden on trade was only indirect and no breach of articles 19(1)(g), 300A, 301 or 304 was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>