<?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>1998 (7) TMI 711 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276290</link>
    <description>Lottery tickets were treated as goods and merchandise for sales tax purposes until the draw takes place, so the taxable character of the transaction was not defeated by the contingent prize right and no separate valuation of supposed components was required. The Delhi Legislative Assembly was said to have competence under Article 239AA to insert clause (cc) in section 4(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, and the amendment was viewed as harmoniously operating with the principal Act rather than being repugnant to it. The levy was also stated to withstand objections based on desuetude, contemporanea expositio, mala fides, and Article 14. Two assessment orders were set aside for limited fresh hearing on taxable turnover and possible penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2018 12:34:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 711 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276290</link>
      <description>Lottery tickets were treated as goods and merchandise for sales tax purposes until the draw takes place, so the taxable character of the transaction was not defeated by the contingent prize right and no separate valuation of supposed components was required. The Delhi Legislative Assembly was said to have competence under Article 239AA to insert clause (cc) in section 4(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, and the amendment was viewed as harmoniously operating with the principal Act rather than being repugnant to it. The levy was also stated to withstand objections based on desuetude, contemporanea expositio, mala fides, and Article 14. Two assessment orders were set aside for limited fresh hearing on taxable turnover and possible penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>