https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159388 The Kerala HC held that the State had legislative competence under Entry 62 of List II to tax luxuries, but the luxury tax on cigarettes was unconstitutional because it directly and immediately restricted trade and commerce, offended article 301, and was not saved by article 304(b) in the absence of Presidential sanction. It also conflicted with the restrictions on declared goods under article 286(3) and section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the levy exceeded the permissible limit and was not a valid single-point levy. Invalidity was confined to section 4A and the Schedule; the remaining luxury tax provisions for hotel accommodation and services survived under severability. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:35:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159388 The Kerala HC held that the State had legislative competence under Entry 62 of List II to tax luxuries, but the luxury tax on cigarettes was unconstitutional because it directly and immediately restricted trade and commerce, offended article 301, and was not saved by article 304(b) in the absence of Presidential sanction. It also conflicted with the restrictions on declared goods under article 286(3) and section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the levy exceeded the permissible limit and was not a valid single-point levy. Invalidity was confined to section 4A and the Schedule; the remaining luxury tax provisions for hotel accommodation and services survived under severability. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159388