<?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>1961 (3) TMI 139 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288035</link>
    <description>The court upheld the constitutionality of the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959, along with the corresponding Rules and notification challenged by the petitioners. The court found that the tax was on passengers and goods, not fares and freights, and did not violate Articles 301, 304, 19, or 14. The court interpreted lump sum payment provisions as permissive, not mandatory, and rejected claims of extra-territorial operation of the Act. The petition was dismissed with costs in favor of the respondents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2020 18:33:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (3) TMI 139 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288035</link>
      <description>The court upheld the constitutionality of the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959, along with the corresponding Rules and notification challenged by the petitioners. The court found that the tax was on passengers and goods, not fares and freights, and did not violate Articles 301, 304, 19, or 14. The court interpreted lump sum payment provisions as permissive, not mandatory, and rejected claims of extra-territorial operation of the Act. The petition was dismissed with costs in favor of the respondents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>