<?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>1986 (2) TMI 331 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155162</link>
    <description>Entry tax on goods entering local areas was upheld as a valid State levy, even though it incidentally affected controlled industries, because the true subject remained taxation of entry of goods rather than industrial regulation. The charging provision was not invalid for excessive delegation, as it fixed the essential features of the levy and merely allowed retrospective notifications for working details. Earlier liabilities were preserved despite supersession of notifications, omission of schedule items, and retrospective amendments, since accrued tax incidence was not extinguished absent clear legislative intent. Uniform rates across local areas did not violate equality, and the retrospective exemption and validating amendments were not shown to offend constitutional limits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 331 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155162</link>
      <description>Entry tax on goods entering local areas was upheld as a valid State levy, even though it incidentally affected controlled industries, because the true subject remained taxation of entry of goods rather than industrial regulation. The charging provision was not invalid for excessive delegation, as it fixed the essential features of the levy and merely allowed retrospective notifications for working details. Earlier liabilities were preserved despite supersession of notifications, omission of schedule items, and retrospective amendments, since accrued tax incidence was not extinguished absent clear legislative intent. Uniform rates across local areas did not violate equality, and the retrospective exemption and validating amendments were not shown to offend constitutional limits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>