https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272481 A property tax under Entry 49 of List II was upheld as within State legislative competence, and the use of floorage as a measure did not convert it into a tax on income or capital. The doctrine of colorable legislation was rejected because legislative motive was irrelevant where competence existed. Section 3(2), giving the Government unguided exemption power, was treated as void for unconstitutional delegation and potential inequality, while Section 4 and the floorage-based levy scheme were held to violate Article 14 because they created arbitrary and discriminatory incidence. The levy was also held not to infringe Article 301 or require prior Presidential sanction under Article 304(b). en-us Mon, 28 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2018 16:38:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272481 A property tax under Entry 49 of List II was upheld as within State legislative competence, and the use of floorage as a measure did not convert it into a tax on income or capital. The doctrine of colorable legislation was rejected because legislative motive was irrelevant where competence existed. Section 3(2), giving the Government unguided exemption power, was treated as void for unconstitutional delegation and potential inequality, while Section 4 and the floorage-based levy scheme were held to violate Article 14 because they created arbitrary and discriminatory incidence. The levy was also held not to infringe Article 301 or require prior Presidential sanction under Article 304(b). Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272481