<?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>2003 (9) TMI 345 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105267</link>
    <description>A challenge to the Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2000 raised whether an entry tax on goods brought into local areas infringed the freedom of trade under Article 301 and whether the compensatory tax doctrine, as developed in later cases, remained sound. Earlier authority treated a levy as valid only where it was closely linked to facilities or services provided to traders, but later decisions had broadened the concept to include more general developmental benefits. Because the levy was earmarked for local area development without a clear nexus to trading facilities, and the case exposed divergence in the doctrine, the constitutional question was referred to a larger Bench for authoritative determination under Article 145(3).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 14:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 345 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105267</link>
      <description>A challenge to the Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2000 raised whether an entry tax on goods brought into local areas infringed the freedom of trade under Article 301 and whether the compensatory tax doctrine, as developed in later cases, remained sound. Earlier authority treated a levy as valid only where it was closely linked to facilities or services provided to traders, but later decisions had broadened the concept to include more general developmental benefits. Because the levy was earmarked for local area development without a clear nexus to trading facilities, and the case exposed divergence in the doctrine, the constitutional question was referred to a larger Bench for authoritative determination under Article 145(3).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>