https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161262 Section 5(2), (2A) and (2B) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act were upheld as a valid fiscal classification because the legislature could fix the point of levy on goods sold under a trade mark or brand name, and the distinction had a rational nexus with revenue augmentation. The provisions shifted only the point of taxation, not the rate, and the deduction mechanism under rule 32(13B) addressed any double taxation concern. The expression "trade mark holder" or "brand name holder" was held to bear its ordinary meaning and was not confined to registered holders, since the statute did not use limiting words and courts will not add them to taxing provisions. The constitutional challenge failed. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:35:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161262 Section 5(2), (2A) and (2B) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act were upheld as a valid fiscal classification because the legislature could fix the point of levy on goods sold under a trade mark or brand name, and the distinction had a rational nexus with revenue augmentation. The provisions shifted only the point of taxation, not the rate, and the deduction mechanism under rule 32(13B) addressed any double taxation concern. The expression "trade mark holder" or "brand name holder" was held to bear its ordinary meaning and was not confined to registered holders, since the statute did not use limiting words and courts will not add them to taxing provisions. The constitutional challenge failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 08 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161262