https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159227 An amended additional sales tax provision that denied the higher turnover threshold to dealers whose principals, agents, head offices, or branches were outside the State was found to create discriminatory taxation and a fiscal barrier to trade, offending Articles 301, 303 and 304(a). The Article 14 challenge failed because taxation classifications enjoy wider legislative latitude and the separate treatment of casual traders and non-resident dealers was treated as rational on the material noted. The discriminatory denial of the exemption threshold was severed, and the benefit was directed to operate uniformly for all dealers while the rest of the levy remained intact. en-us Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159227 An amended additional sales tax provision that denied the higher turnover threshold to dealers whose principals, agents, head offices, or branches were outside the State was found to create discriminatory taxation and a fiscal barrier to trade, offending Articles 301, 303 and 304(a). The Article 14 challenge failed because taxation classifications enjoy wider legislative latitude and the separate treatment of casual traders and non-resident dealers was treated as rational on the material noted. The discriminatory denial of the exemption threshold was severed, and the benefit was directed to operate uniformly for all dealers while the rest of the levy remained intact. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159227