https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167956 A demand for documents relating to a period before 1 April 2008 could not be sustained against a hospital that was brought within the luxury tax law only by the 2008 amendment, so the pre-amendment notice was illegal. The levy on luxury provided in hospitals was nevertheless within State legislative competence under Entry 62 of List II because it was imposed on the taxable activity of enjoying accommodation and associated amenities, not on medical treatment or goods as such. The writ petitions succeeded only to the extent of quashing the notice for the earlier period, while the validity of the amended levy was upheld. en-us Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2015 19:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167956 A demand for documents relating to a period before 1 April 2008 could not be sustained against a hospital that was brought within the luxury tax law only by the 2008 amendment, so the pre-amendment notice was illegal. The levy on luxury provided in hospitals was nevertheless within State legislative competence under Entry 62 of List II because it was imposed on the taxable activity of enjoying accommodation and associated amenities, not on medical treatment or goods as such. The writ petitions succeeded only to the extent of quashing the notice for the earlier period, while the validity of the amended levy was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167956