https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160996 Sections 28-A(2) and 28-A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act were upheld as valid regulatory measures because they were aimed at preventing tax evasion through document requirements, check-post inspection and penalty for non-compliance. The Court held that these provisions were incidental to the taxing power, did not directly or immediately impede the free flow of trade under Article 301, and therefore did not require Presidential assent under Article 304(b). The challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) also failed because the restrictions were treated as reasonable and confined to lawful tax enforcement. en-us Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:22:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160996 Sections 28-A(2) and 28-A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act were upheld as valid regulatory measures because they were aimed at preventing tax evasion through document requirements, check-post inspection and penalty for non-compliance. The Court held that these provisions were incidental to the taxing power, did not directly or immediately impede the free flow of trade under Article 301, and therefore did not require Presidential assent under Article 304(b). The challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) also failed because the restrictions were treated as reasonable and confined to lawful tax enforcement. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160996