<?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>2001 (6) TMI 801 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160914</link>
    <description>Luxury tax on cigarettes may fall within the State&#039;s Entry 62 power as a tax on luxuries, notwithstanding incidental effects on sale or purchase; Article 286(3) does not extend the relevant restriction to Article 366(29A)(f). However, a levy imposed at the point of supply and collected by stockists directly burdens inter-State and intra-State trade. Such a burden violates Article 301 unless it is regulatory or compensatory, or satisfies Article 304(b), including prior Presidential sanction. As the levy was neither compensatory nor supported by the required sanction, the amended provisions were unconstitutional despite being within legislative competence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:36:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 801 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160914</link>
      <description>Luxury tax on cigarettes may fall within the State&#039;s Entry 62 power as a tax on luxuries, notwithstanding incidental effects on sale or purchase; Article 286(3) does not extend the relevant restriction to Article 366(29A)(f). However, a levy imposed at the point of supply and collected by stockists directly burdens inter-State and intra-State trade. Such a burden violates Article 301 unless it is regulatory or compensatory, or satisfies Article 304(b), including prior Presidential sanction. As the levy was neither compensatory nor supported by the required sanction, the amended provisions were unconstitutional despite being within legislative competence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>