<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1279 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289872</link>
    <description>International treaties do not, by themselves, create enforceable domestic law or invalidate State excise notifications unless Parliament implements them under Article 253. Communications from the Union expressing policy preference had no binding legal effect, so the treaty-based challenge failed. In taxation, the State had wide latitude to classify imported wines separately from domestically produced wines for fees and duties, and the levy was not shown to be hostile or irrational under Article 14. The impugned notifications were therefore sustained, and the differential fiscal treatment was upheld as a permissible classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:54:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1279 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289872</link>
      <description>International treaties do not, by themselves, create enforceable domestic law or invalidate State excise notifications unless Parliament implements them under Article 253. Communications from the Union expressing policy preference had no binding legal effect, so the treaty-based challenge failed. In taxation, the State had wide latitude to classify imported wines separately from domestically produced wines for fees and duties, and the levy was not shown to be hostile or irrational under Article 14. The impugned notifications were therefore sustained, and the differential fiscal treatment was upheld as a permissible classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>