<?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>1998 (3) TMI 648 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159267</link>
    <description>A concessional sales tax scheme for exercise books that depended on paper being purchased from registered dealers within Madhya Pradesh was held discriminatory and inconsistent with Articles 301 and 304(a) because it favoured goods made with intra-State inputs over similar goods made with out-of-State inputs. The Court treated exercise books as commercially distinct from paper and rejected the justification that the concession merely avoided double taxation on raw material. The constitutional challenge succeeded, but refund of tax already collected was refused because the burden had been passed on to consumers, and repayment would have resulted in unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 648 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159267</link>
      <description>A concessional sales tax scheme for exercise books that depended on paper being purchased from registered dealers within Madhya Pradesh was held discriminatory and inconsistent with Articles 301 and 304(a) because it favoured goods made with intra-State inputs over similar goods made with out-of-State inputs. The Court treated exercise books as commercially distinct from paper and rejected the justification that the concession merely avoided double taxation on raw material. The constitutional challenge succeeded, but refund of tax already collected was refused because the burden had been passed on to consumers, and repayment would have resulted in unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>