<?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>1964 (9) TMI 83 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277846</link>
    <description>State sales tax on cotton fabrics classified as declared goods was invalid for the relevant period because parliamentary restrictions on State taxation, incorporated through the additional excise duty framework, governed the levy and the tax exceeded the permissible limit. The assessment required modification by excluding that turnover. Exemption for handloom-woven cotton cloth was unavailable because the factual finding that the goods were not handloom-manufactured was subject to statutory appellate and revisional remedies, with no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice shown. The Article 14 challenge also failed, as differential consequences arising from separate competent legislatures did not constitute discrimination under a single law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:28:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (9) TMI 83 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277846</link>
      <description>State sales tax on cotton fabrics classified as declared goods was invalid for the relevant period because parliamentary restrictions on State taxation, incorporated through the additional excise duty framework, governed the levy and the tax exceeded the permissible limit. The assessment required modification by excluding that turnover. Exemption for handloom-woven cotton cloth was unavailable because the factual finding that the goods were not handloom-manufactured was subject to statutory appellate and revisional remedies, with no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice shown. The Article 14 challenge also failed, as differential consequences arising from separate competent legislatures did not constitute discrimination under a single law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>