<?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>2004 (1) TMI 651 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161757</link>
    <description>Entry tax on furnace oil and low sulphur waxy residue oil under the Maharashtra Entry Tax Act was examined against the effective sales tax burden on comparable local purchases under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and Rules. Because local goods could receive refund or set-off under section 42 and rule 41D, while imported goods were subjected to 15% entry tax, the levy created an unequal tax burden and a barrier to trade. The Court also found no established direct nexus between the tax collected and any corresponding benefit to the taxpayers, so the levy was not compensatory or regulatory and could not be justified as an exception to Article 301.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 651 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161757</link>
      <description>Entry tax on furnace oil and low sulphur waxy residue oil under the Maharashtra Entry Tax Act was examined against the effective sales tax burden on comparable local purchases under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and Rules. Because local goods could receive refund or set-off under section 42 and rule 41D, while imported goods were subjected to 15% entry tax, the levy created an unequal tax burden and a barrier to trade. The Court also found no established direct nexus between the tax collected and any corresponding benefit to the taxpayers, so the levy was not compensatory or regulatory and could not be justified as an exception to Article 301.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>