<?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>2006 (1) TMI 567 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162275</link>
    <description>The notification inserting gutka and pan masala into the First Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 was upheld. The Court held that the State could withdraw a general exemption by including those goods in the Schedule, and that an earlier decision supporting a similar notification had distinguished the Andhra Pradesh position. It further held that the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 did not remove the State&#039;s legislative competence to levy sales tax on the same goods, because the additional excise arrangement operated only within the relevant fiscal scheme. The Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Act, 2000 and its Statement of Objects and Reasons did not curtail that power, so the writ challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:16:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 567 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162275</link>
      <description>The notification inserting gutka and pan masala into the First Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 was upheld. The Court held that the State could withdraw a general exemption by including those goods in the Schedule, and that an earlier decision supporting a similar notification had distinguished the Andhra Pradesh position. It further held that the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 did not remove the State&#039;s legislative competence to levy sales tax on the same goods, because the additional excise arrangement operated only within the relevant fiscal scheme. The Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Act, 2000 and its Statement of Objects and Reasons did not curtail that power, so the writ challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>