<?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>1997 (8) TMI 484 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159445</link>
    <description>Retrospective enhancement of sales tax on drugs, medicines, pesticides and insecticides was upheld as a valid exercise of legislative power. The Court held that mere retrospectivity does not invalidate a fiscal statute, and the levy was not shown to be confiscatory, discriminatory, or so unreasonable as to amount to a colourable exercise of power. The challenge based on freedom to carry on trade failed because tax liability is not unconstitutional merely because dealers cannot pass it on to purchasers. The short period of retrospectivity, marginal rate increase, and stated revenue-neutral justification were treated as sufficient to sustain the amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:01:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 484 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159445</link>
      <description>Retrospective enhancement of sales tax on drugs, medicines, pesticides and insecticides was upheld as a valid exercise of legislative power. The Court held that mere retrospectivity does not invalidate a fiscal statute, and the levy was not shown to be confiscatory, discriminatory, or so unreasonable as to amount to a colourable exercise of power. The challenge based on freedom to carry on trade failed because tax liability is not unconstitutional merely because dealers cannot pass it on to purchasers. The short period of retrospectivity, marginal rate increase, and stated revenue-neutral justification were treated as sufficient to sustain the amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>