<?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>2000 (8) TMI 1064 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160385</link>
    <description>Sections 3-D and 3-E of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were upheld as a valid special levy scheme for hotels, restaurants and jewellery dealers, with total turnover as the tax base. The classification was found to have an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to revenue collection and simplification, so challenges based on Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 failed. Section 2(1)(aa) of the Additional Sales Tax Act was held applicable because the turnover assessed under these provisions answered the description of taxable turnover. The court declined to read down &quot;total turnover&quot; or &quot;shall&quot;, and rejected the plea that prior taxation amounted to double taxation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:33:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 1064 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160385</link>
      <description>Sections 3-D and 3-E of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were upheld as a valid special levy scheme for hotels, restaurants and jewellery dealers, with total turnover as the tax base. The classification was found to have an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to revenue collection and simplification, so challenges based on Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 failed. Section 2(1)(aa) of the Additional Sales Tax Act was held applicable because the turnover assessed under these provisions answered the description of taxable turnover. The court declined to read down &quot;total turnover&quot; or &quot;shall&quot;, and rejected the plea that prior taxation amounted to double taxation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>