https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191640 Article 276(2) was construed as imposing a separate constitutional ceiling of Rs. 250 per annum on each authorised taxing body, not a single aggregate limit across the State and local authorities together. The provision was read disjunctively, and the proviso was treated as preserving pre-existing taxes that exceeded the ceiling. On that basis, the Panchayat Samiti's additional profession tax was held valid because profession tax is distinct from income tax and may be levied independently by different competent authorities. The challenge alleging impermissible double taxation therefore failed. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:25:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191640 Article 276(2) was construed as imposing a separate constitutional ceiling of Rs. 250 per annum on each authorised taxing body, not a single aggregate limit across the State and local authorities together. The provision was read disjunctively, and the proviso was treated as preserving pre-existing taxes that exceeded the ceiling. On that basis, the Panchayat Samiti's additional profession tax was held valid because profession tax is distinct from income tax and may be levied independently by different competent authorities. The challenge alleging impermissible double taxation therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191640