<?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>1962 (1) TMI 61 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171697</link>
    <description>Deletion of a sales tax exemption for goods purchased for use in manufacture or production of taxable goods was upheld as a permissible revenue measure. The Court held that the affected goods were not similarly situated for Article 14 purposes, and that the equality guarantee targets discrimination between persons rather than mere distinctions between articles. It further held that the increased tax burden did not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(f), because the choice of taxable goods remained a matter of legislative policy within competence. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the amendment was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (1) TMI 61 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171697</link>
      <description>Deletion of a sales tax exemption for goods purchased for use in manufacture or production of taxable goods was upheld as a permissible revenue measure. The Court held that the affected goods were not similarly situated for Article 14 purposes, and that the equality guarantee targets discrimination between persons rather than mere distinctions between articles. It further held that the increased tax burden did not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(f), because the choice of taxable goods remained a matter of legislative policy within competence. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the amendment was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>