https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19264 A profession tax law was upheld as within the State List, because the amendment to article 276(2) was treated as incidental to the State's taxing power and did not require ratification under article 368(2). Several provisions were sustained or read down: the charging and collection machinery was upheld on territorial nexus and employer collection principles; penalty provisions were treated as ancillary to tax enforcement; and sections dealing with legal representatives and search and seizure were saved by limiting constructions. The Schedule was partly invalidated, however, because some classifications were found arbitrary under article 14, including unequal treatment of similarly placed persons and lack of rational grading or threshold standards. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:14:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19264 A profession tax law was upheld as within the State List, because the amendment to article 276(2) was treated as incidental to the State's taxing power and did not require ratification under article 368(2). Several provisions were sustained or read down: the charging and collection machinery was upheld on territorial nexus and employer collection principles; penalty provisions were treated as ancillary to tax enforcement; and sections dealing with legal representatives and search and seizure were saved by limiting constructions. The Schedule was partly invalidated, however, because some classifications were found arbitrary under article 14, including unequal treatment of similarly placed persons and lack of rational grading or threshold standards. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19264