<?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>1975 (7) TMI 155 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192598</link>
    <description>A levy on the first sale of alcohol, including denatured spirit, was treated as a sales tax because liability attached to the dealer on the sale event, not to manufacture, and its quantification by quantity or collection through the Excise Department did not change that character. The text also notes that differential treatment of alcohol and the levy&#039;s administration did not, by itself, establish a breach of Article 14 or Articles 301 and 304(b). However, a tax fixed above the realizable sale price, with coercive recovery consequences, was described as confiscatory and a colourable exercise of taxing power. The alcohol-related provisions were held not severable and were liable to fall together.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:57:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (7) TMI 155 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192598</link>
      <description>A levy on the first sale of alcohol, including denatured spirit, was treated as a sales tax because liability attached to the dealer on the sale event, not to manufacture, and its quantification by quantity or collection through the Excise Department did not change that character. The text also notes that differential treatment of alcohol and the levy&#039;s administration did not, by itself, establish a breach of Article 14 or Articles 301 and 304(b). However, a tax fixed above the realizable sale price, with coercive recovery consequences, was described as confiscatory and a colourable exercise of taxing power. The alcohol-related provisions were held not severable and were liable to fall together.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>