https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334065 Rule 3(2)(b)(ii) of the Delhi Tax on Luxury Rules, 1996 was invalid because it treated 60% of consolidated banquet hall receipts as luxury receipts even though Section 3(5) of the parent Act excluded turnover attributable to food, drinks and other goods already liable to VAT. The Court held that subordinate legislation may prescribe a mode of collection only to the extent permitted by the Act, and cannot override an express statutory exclusion or expand the taxable base by deeming fiction. The rule was therefore held ultra vires and quashed. 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 Rule 3(2)(b)(ii) of the Delhi Tax on Luxury Rules, 1996 was invalid because it treated 60% of consolidated banquet hall receipts as luxury receipts even though Section 3(5) of the parent Act excluded turnover attributable to food, drinks and other goods already liable to VAT. The Court held that subordinate legislation may prescribe a mode of collection only to the extent permitted by the Act, and cannot override an express statutory exclusion or expand the taxable base by deeming fiction. The rule was therefore held ultra vires and quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334065