<?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>2004 (5) TMI 614 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288570</link>
    <description>Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was upheld as a valid luxury tax on residential buildings with a plinth area of 278.7 square metres or more completed on or after 1 April 1999. The levy fell within the State Legislature&#039;s power under Entry 62 of List II, and the Court held that luxury taxes need not all be imposed under a single enactment. Classification by plinth area was treated as a reasonable distinction between necessity and luxury, and the absence of a separate definition of luxury did not make the provision arbitrary. Limiting the levy to residential buildings and to those completed after the cutoff date was found to have a rational nexus with the object of the tax, so the Article 14 challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:23:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 614 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288570</link>
      <description>Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 was upheld as a valid luxury tax on residential buildings with a plinth area of 278.7 square metres or more completed on or after 1 April 1999. The levy fell within the State Legislature&#039;s power under Entry 62 of List II, and the Court held that luxury taxes need not all be imposed under a single enactment. Classification by plinth area was treated as a reasonable distinction between necessity and luxury, and the absence of a separate definition of luxury did not make the provision arbitrary. Limiting the levy to residential buildings and to those completed after the cutoff date was found to have a rational nexus with the object of the tax, so the Article 14 challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>