<?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>1995 (11) TMI 424 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159417</link>
    <description>The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act provisions permitting levy on polishing, dressing, handling and transport charges collected with granite sales were not unconstitutional, because the State Legislature had competence under Entry 54 of List II to enact the levy. The dispute concerned whether those charges formed part of turnover and whether exemption was proved in assessment proceedings; that issue depended on facts, not on absence of legislative power. As the assessee failed to establish the factual basis for exemption, the statutory provisions could not be struck down as ultra vires, and writ jurisdiction was not an appropriate route to relitigate the assessment issue. The constitutional challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:57:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 424 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159417</link>
      <description>The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act provisions permitting levy on polishing, dressing, handling and transport charges collected with granite sales were not unconstitutional, because the State Legislature had competence under Entry 54 of List II to enact the levy. The dispute concerned whether those charges formed part of turnover and whether exemption was proved in assessment proceedings; that issue depended on facts, not on absence of legislative power. As the assessee failed to establish the factual basis for exemption, the statutory provisions could not be struck down as ultra vires, and writ jurisdiction was not an appropriate route to relitigate the assessment issue. The constitutional challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>