https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161429 Luxury tax on gutka stock was treated as a tax on possession and turnover of stock, not on sale or movement of goods, so it did not directly or immediately restrict trade under Article 301 and did not require compliance with Article 304(b). The retrospective enhancement of the levy from 1 April 2000 was upheld as a permissible fiscal measure and was not shown to be arbitrary, confiscatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The 20% rate was also sustained because gutka was classified as a luxury item and the petitioners failed to prove hostile discrimination. Legislative competence was affirmed under the State taxing power, and the levy was not displaced by Central enactments or Entry 52 of List I. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:42:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161429 Luxury tax on gutka stock was treated as a tax on possession and turnover of stock, not on sale or movement of goods, so it did not directly or immediately restrict trade under Article 301 and did not require compliance with Article 304(b). The retrospective enhancement of the levy from 1 April 2000 was upheld as a permissible fiscal measure and was not shown to be arbitrary, confiscatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The 20% rate was also sustained because gutka was classified as a luxury item and the petitioners failed to prove hostile discrimination. Legislative competence was affirmed under the State taxing power, and the levy was not displaced by Central enactments or Entry 52 of List I. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161429