https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287818 The Gauhati High Court examined a market cess scheme and upheld the deeming fiction in Section 21 as a rebuttable presumption confined to preventing evasion, rejecting repugnancy under Article 254. It treated the cess as a regulatory fee requiring only substantial correlation with services rendered, and sustained the levy while reading down excessive expenditure heads. Sections 21(2) and 21A were also upheld as supplementary anti-evasion provisions, with the commencement date aligned to the principal Act. Direct refund was declined because entitlement required transaction-wise scrutiny, so individual claims were remitted for committee examination. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2025 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287818 The Gauhati High Court examined a market cess scheme and upheld the deeming fiction in Section 21 as a rebuttable presumption confined to preventing evasion, rejecting repugnancy under Article 254. It treated the cess as a regulatory fee requiring only substantial correlation with services rendered, and sustained the levy while reading down excessive expenditure heads. Sections 21(2) and 21A were also upheld as supplementary anti-evasion provisions, with the commencement date aligned to the principal Act. Direct refund was declined because entitlement required transaction-wise scrutiny, so individual claims were remitted for committee examination. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287818