https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281449 A State levy on lands and buildings measured by annual letting value was treated as a property tax within Entry 49 of List II, not as a tax on income or capital value, so it remained within State legislative competence. The Court also rejected the colourable legislation challenge because no transgression into Parliament's field was shown. It further held that municipal taxation under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act did not prevent a concurrent State levy, as both powers could co-exist and double taxation is not unconstitutional where competence exists. Challenges based on freedom of contract, confiscatory effect, and Article 14 were rejected for want of supporting material or impermissible classification. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:33:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281449 A State levy on lands and buildings measured by annual letting value was treated as a property tax within Entry 49 of List II, not as a tax on income or capital value, so it remained within State legislative competence. The Court also rejected the colourable legislation challenge because no transgression into Parliament's field was shown. It further held that municipal taxation under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act did not prevent a concurrent State levy, as both powers could co-exist and double taxation is not unconstitutional where competence exists. Challenges based on freedom of contract, confiscatory effect, and Article 14 were rejected for want of supporting material or impermissible classification. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281449