<?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>1996 (2) TMI 526 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160362</link>
    <description>The Kerala electricity surcharge was upheld as a tax in pith and substance on the consumption or sale of electricity, since the true character of a levy depends on substance rather than nomenclature. The Court held that supply to industrial consumers involves simultaneous consumption and sale, bringing the impost within Entry 53 of List II and the State&#039;s legislative competence under Article 246(3). The validating provision preserving past collections was also sustained because the legislature had competence and retrospectively removed the defect identified in the earlier invalidation. Retrospective validation was held permissible where it cures the basis of the prior judgment without usurping judicial power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2019 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 526 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160362</link>
      <description>The Kerala electricity surcharge was upheld as a tax in pith and substance on the consumption or sale of electricity, since the true character of a levy depends on substance rather than nomenclature. The Court held that supply to industrial consumers involves simultaneous consumption and sale, bringing the impost within Entry 53 of List II and the State&#039;s legislative competence under Article 246(3). The validating provision preserving past collections was also sustained because the legislature had competence and retrospectively removed the defect identified in the earlier invalidation. Retrospective validation was held permissible where it cures the basis of the prior judgment without usurping judicial power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>