https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277846 Handloom exemption under Rule 3(26) failed because the claim depended on a factual finding that the cloth was handloom-woven, and the adverse finding was not shown to involve any error of law, natural justice breach, or jurisdictional defect warranting Article 226 interference. The sales tax levy on cotton fabrics was invalid to the extent it exceeded the restrictions applicable to declared goods under Article 286(3), Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, so the assessment had to be modified by excluding the disallowed turnover. The Article 14 challenge failed because the alleged inequality arose from different statutes enacted by separate legislatures. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:28:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277846 Handloom exemption under Rule 3(26) failed because the claim depended on a factual finding that the cloth was handloom-woven, and the adverse finding was not shown to involve any error of law, natural justice breach, or jurisdictional defect warranting Article 226 interference. The sales tax levy on cotton fabrics was invalid to the extent it exceeded the restrictions applicable to declared goods under Article 286(3), Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, so the assessment had to be modified by excluding the disallowed turnover. The Article 14 challenge failed because the alleged inequality arose from different statutes enacted by separate legislatures. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 24 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277846