<?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>1988 (9) TMI 330 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155875</link>
    <description>Entry 52 of List II empowers a State Legislature to levy tax on goods entering a local area for consumption, use or sale, and the validity of such levy does not depend on an express provision transferring proceeds to local authorities. An entry tax remains constitutionally distinct from sales tax even if sales-tax machinery is used for collection. The levy was also discussed in relation to Articles 14 and 301, with no material showing discriminatory or trade-restrictive effect, and subsequent Presidential assent was treated as curing any defect in prior sanction. The charging scheme indicated a single-point levy, not repeated taxation, and the objection based on non-laying of the Rules was rejected where the Rules had in fact been laid and approved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 17:21:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (9) TMI 330 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155875</link>
      <description>Entry 52 of List II empowers a State Legislature to levy tax on goods entering a local area for consumption, use or sale, and the validity of such levy does not depend on an express provision transferring proceeds to local authorities. An entry tax remains constitutionally distinct from sales tax even if sales-tax machinery is used for collection. The levy was also discussed in relation to Articles 14 and 301, with no material showing discriminatory or trade-restrictive effect, and subsequent Presidential assent was treated as curing any defect in prior sanction. The charging scheme indicated a single-point levy, not repeated taxation, and the objection based on non-laying of the Rules was rejected where the Rules had in fact been laid and approved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>