<?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>1996 (9) TMI 569 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158765</link>
    <description>A sales tax exemption notification under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was challenged as ultra vires and discriminatory because it granted a longer concession to food processing units in advanced districts than to similar units in backward districts. The classification was upheld because the scheme turned on district location, not on the nature of the industry alone, and the State was entitled to frame tax concessions on that policy basis. The differential treatment had an intelligible basis and a rational nexus with the concession policy, so the challenge based on hostile discrimination failed and the notification remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:43:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 569 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158765</link>
      <description>A sales tax exemption notification under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was challenged as ultra vires and discriminatory because it granted a longer concession to food processing units in advanced districts than to similar units in backward districts. The classification was upheld because the scheme turned on district location, not on the nature of the industry alone, and the State was entitled to frame tax concessions on that policy basis. The differential treatment had an intelligible basis and a rational nexus with the concession policy, so the challenge based on hostile discrimination failed and the notification remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>