https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306506 A levy on lands and buildings remained within the State's legislative competence under Entry 49 of List II even though annual value was linked to market value, because the tax continued to operate on land or building as such rather than on capital assets. However, the owner-occupied and tenant-occupied valuation distinction was held to be an artificial classification lacking a rational nexus with the object of house tax, and was struck down as violative of Article 14. The amendment enabling re-determination of assessment was upheld for carrying notice and hearing safeguards, while the market value definition was not sustained because it gave unguided discretion in selecting valuation modes. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Feb 2023 15:02:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306506 A levy on lands and buildings remained within the State's legislative competence under Entry 49 of List II even though annual value was linked to market value, because the tax continued to operate on land or building as such rather than on capital assets. However, the owner-occupied and tenant-occupied valuation distinction was held to be an artificial classification lacking a rational nexus with the object of house tax, and was struck down as violative of Article 14. The amendment enabling re-determination of assessment was upheld for carrying notice and hearing safeguards, while the market value definition was not sustained because it gave unguided discretion in selecting valuation modes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306506