<?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>2000 (5) TMI 1080 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190661</link>
    <description>The compensatory nature of motor vehicle tax meant that tax was chargeable only on vehicles used or kept for use on public roads, with refund available when non-use was shown. The Gujarat amendment to Section 3-A(5)(b), which required an omnibus owner to prove that non-use beyond three months was due to reasons beyond control, imposed a condition unrelated to the levy&#039;s compensatory character. The Court held that existing statutory safeguards already addressed verification of non-use and misuse, and that a mere apprehension of evasion could not justify singling out omnibuses for an additional burden. The impugned condition was therefore invalid and beyond State legislative competence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:04:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 1080 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190661</link>
      <description>The compensatory nature of motor vehicle tax meant that tax was chargeable only on vehicles used or kept for use on public roads, with refund available when non-use was shown. The Gujarat amendment to Section 3-A(5)(b), which required an omnibus owner to prove that non-use beyond three months was due to reasons beyond control, imposed a condition unrelated to the levy&#039;s compensatory character. The Court held that existing statutory safeguards already addressed verification of non-use and misuse, and that a mere apprehension of evasion could not justify singling out omnibuses for an additional burden. The impugned condition was therefore invalid and beyond State legislative competence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>