<?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>2001 (4) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that registered valuers with engineering qualifications are considered &quot;consulting engineers&quot; under the Finance Act, subject to service tax. Parliament was found to have the authority to impose such taxes, not infringing on state jurisdiction. The court upheld the taxation of consulting engineers, rejecting claims of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that registered valuers with engineering qualifications are considered &quot;consulting engineers&quot; under the Finance Act, subject to service tax. Parliament was found to have the authority to impose such taxes, not infringing on state jurisdiction. The court upheld the taxation of consulting engineers, rejecting claims of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>