https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105266 A compensatory, non-discriminatory entry tax was treated as a regulatory levy, so prior Presidential sanction under article 304(b) was not required, and article 304(a) was not breached because the levy did not discriminate between locally manufactured and imported goods. The retrospective notification and the amendment authorising retrospective or prospective operation were upheld as valid because they removed defects noticed in earlier litigation without altering the basic character of the tax. Industrial areas declared under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act were also held not to fall outside the definition of "local area" for entry tax purposes, so the challenge failed on all substantive grounds. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105266 A compensatory, non-discriminatory entry tax was treated as a regulatory levy, so prior Presidential sanction under article 304(b) was not required, and article 304(a) was not breached because the levy did not discriminate between locally manufactured and imported goods. The retrospective notification and the amendment authorising retrospective or prospective operation were upheld as valid because they removed defects noticed in earlier litigation without altering the basic character of the tax. Industrial areas declared under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act were also held not to fall outside the definition of "local area" for entry tax purposes, so the challenge failed on all substantive grounds. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105266