https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190993 Motor vehicle taxation was assessed under Articles 301, 304(b), 19(1)(g) and 14, with the Court noting that presidential sanction under Article 304(b) does not end judicial scrutiny of whether the restriction is reasonable and in public interest. The levy was treated as not shown to be compensatory or regulatory, yet the challenge failed because the tax burden was found only to reduce profitability, not to destroy the business or exceed permissible limits. The article also records that differential treatment for the Telangana area and inter-State operators arose from distinct territorial and statutory regimes, and was therefore not unconstitutional discrimination. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:37:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190993 Motor vehicle taxation was assessed under Articles 301, 304(b), 19(1)(g) and 14, with the Court noting that presidential sanction under Article 304(b) does not end judicial scrutiny of whether the restriction is reasonable and in public interest. The levy was treated as not shown to be compensatory or regulatory, yet the challenge failed because the tax burden was found only to reduce profitability, not to destroy the business or exceed permissible limits. The article also records that differential treatment for the Telangana area and inter-State operators arose from distinct territorial and statutory regimes, and was therefore not unconstitutional discrimination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Aug 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190993