<?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 (4) TMI 465 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158791</link>
    <description>A residuary notification issued under section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 was upheld as intra vires because the enabling provision allowed concessional tax or exemption in respect of &quot;any goods&quot; and did not require each item to be individually named. The court noted that the statutory scheme permitted a recognition certificate for goods used in manufacture, that earlier similar notifications had been issued, and that the exclusion of distilleries and breweries showed application of mind. A uniform concessional rate was treated as fiscal rationalisation, and the notification was not shown to be arbitrary or inconsistent with Article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:21:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 465 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158791</link>
      <description>A residuary notification issued under section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 was upheld as intra vires because the enabling provision allowed concessional tax or exemption in respect of &quot;any goods&quot; and did not require each item to be individually named. The court noted that the statutory scheme permitted a recognition certificate for goods used in manufacture, that earlier similar notifications had been issued, and that the exclusion of distilleries and breweries showed application of mind. A uniform concessional rate was treated as fiscal rationalisation, and the notification was not shown to be arbitrary or inconsistent with Article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>