<?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>1996 (2) TMI 430 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104055</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1993, was compensatory in nature, aimed at offsetting revenue losses and providing trading facilities. The tax was deemed valid under Article 304(b) and Article 255 with the President&#039;s assent, serving the public interest. The Court affirmed the Bihar Legislature&#039;s competence to levy the tax despite the ADE Act. It clarified that the tax fell within the scope of Entry 52 in List II of the Seventh Schedule. Additionally, the Court upheld the validity of the proviso to Section 3(1) and Section 6 under Article 14. The State&#039;s appeals were allowed, while appeals by I.T.C. Limited and V.S.T. Industries were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 430 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104055</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1993, was compensatory in nature, aimed at offsetting revenue losses and providing trading facilities. The tax was deemed valid under Article 304(b) and Article 255 with the President&#039;s assent, serving the public interest. The Court affirmed the Bihar Legislature&#039;s competence to levy the tax despite the ADE Act. It clarified that the tax fell within the scope of Entry 52 in List II of the Seventh Schedule. Additionally, the Court upheld the validity of the proviso to Section 3(1) and Section 6 under Article 14. The State&#039;s appeals were allowed, while appeals by I.T.C. Limited and V.S.T. Industries were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104055</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>