<?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>1970 (1) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199028</link>
    <description>The Kerala Plantation (Additional Tax) Act, 1960 as amended in 1967 was upheld against challenges to legislative competence and Article 14. The majority treated plantation taxation as part of the State&#039;s land-tax field and rejected the argument that the absence of a specific plantation entry made the levy ultra vires. On equality, the Court held that fiscal legislation allows wide classification and that the challenger must show hostile or irrational discrimination; the uniform levy on specified plantations did not, on the record, single out tea plantations for unconstitutional treatment. A dissent considered the tax an ad hoc uniform levy lacking rational classification by productivity or local conditions and thus offending Article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2018 14:09:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (1) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199028</link>
      <description>The Kerala Plantation (Additional Tax) Act, 1960 as amended in 1967 was upheld against challenges to legislative competence and Article 14. The majority treated plantation taxation as part of the State&#039;s land-tax field and rejected the argument that the absence of a specific plantation entry made the levy ultra vires. On equality, the Court held that fiscal legislation allows wide classification and that the challenger must show hostile or irrational discrimination; the uniform levy on specified plantations did not, on the record, single out tea plantations for unconstitutional treatment. A dissent considered the tax an ad hoc uniform levy lacking rational classification by productivity or local conditions and thus offending Article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>