<?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>2018 (12) TMI 795 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372026</link>
    <description>A State motor vehicles tax may validly apply to roadworthy vehicles kept by manufacturers or dealers in the course of business under a trade-certificate regime, because the charging provision operates before final registration and is separate from temporary registration. The fact that the Motor Vehicles Act excludes manufacturers from the dealer definition did not limit the State&#039;s taxing power, since the two enactments operate in different fields and the levy falls within the State Legislature&#039;s competence. Statutory penalty and interest for delayed payment were also upheld because the Act expressly provides for them, and the challenge based on lack of notice did not arise once notice and hearing were given.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2022 11:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=547107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 795 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372026</link>
      <description>A State motor vehicles tax may validly apply to roadworthy vehicles kept by manufacturers or dealers in the course of business under a trade-certificate regime, because the charging provision operates before final registration and is separate from temporary registration. The fact that the Motor Vehicles Act excludes manufacturers from the dealer definition did not limit the State&#039;s taxing power, since the two enactments operate in different fields and the levy falls within the State Legislature&#039;s competence. Statutory penalty and interest for delayed payment were also upheld because the Act expressly provides for them, and the challenge based on lack of notice did not arise once notice and hearing were given.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>