<?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>2002 (1) TMI 1277 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160983</link>
    <description>A sales tax exemption notification limited to poultry farmers within Kerala was upheld against constitutional challenge. The Court held that Article 301 does not confer an absolute freedom of trade and must operate within the wider constitutional scheme permitting lawful regulatory and restrictive measures. It further held that a State may grant an exemption or subsidy to a class of dealers or a specific area in the interest of economic development without violating Articles 14 or 304(a) merely because the benefit is not extended uniformly to all persons or locations. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) was also rejected, and the notification was not unconstitutional.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1277 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160983</link>
      <description>A sales tax exemption notification limited to poultry farmers within Kerala was upheld against constitutional challenge. The Court held that Article 301 does not confer an absolute freedom of trade and must operate within the wider constitutional scheme permitting lawful regulatory and restrictive measures. It further held that a State may grant an exemption or subsidy to a class of dealers or a specific area in the interest of economic development without violating Articles 14 or 304(a) merely because the benefit is not extended uniformly to all persons or locations. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) was also rejected, and the notification was not unconstitutional.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>