https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334065 The court held that Rule 3 (2) (b) (ii) of the Delhi Tax on Luxury Rules, 1996 was ultravires and set it aside in favor of the petitioner association, an association of Banquet Hall Owners. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the rule supplements the main act, emphasizing the importance of not supplanting the main act with subordinate legislation. The court emphasized that the key issue is the legal definition of taxable activities, ultimately ruling the impugned rule as ultravires and allowing the writ petition. en-us Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334065 The court held that Rule 3 (2) (b) (ii) of the Delhi Tax on Luxury Rules, 1996 was ultravires and set it aside in favor of the petitioner association, an association of Banquet Hall Owners. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the rule supplements the main act, emphasizing the importance of not supplanting the main act with subordinate legislation. The court emphasized that the key issue is the legal definition of taxable activities, ultimately ruling the impugned rule as ultravires and allowing the writ petition. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334065