<?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>1998 (4) TMI 513 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159622</link>
    <description>The retrospective deletion of section 28 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 was treated as valid because the entry tax levy under Chapter II-A was held compensatory in nature, so the amendment did not require the President&#039;s assent. The earlier view that non-dealers were not liable under section 28 was displaced by the later Division Bench ruling, and the constitutional objection accepted by the single Judge could not survive. The challenge by importers to the entry tax levy was not accepted, and the writ appeals succeeded in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:55:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 513 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159622</link>
      <description>The retrospective deletion of section 28 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 was treated as valid because the entry tax levy under Chapter II-A was held compensatory in nature, so the amendment did not require the President&#039;s assent. The earlier view that non-dealers were not liable under section 28 was displaced by the later Division Bench ruling, and the constitutional objection accepted by the single Judge could not survive. The challenge by importers to the entry tax levy was not accepted, and the writ appeals succeeded in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>