https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161931 A challenge to the Andhra Pradesh entry tax on Union-owned vehicles failed because the proviso to section 3(1) was confined to Central Government vehicles used exclusively for defence purposes, and that factual requirement was not established for vehicles purchased for the Nuclear Fuel Complex. The levy was treated as tax on the entry of the vehicle into a local area, not a tax directly on Union property, so Article 285(1) was not attracted. The Court also held that the entry tax law and the Motor Vehicles Act operated in different fields, and the absence of Presidential assent did not make the State Act unconstitutional on the grounds urged. en-us Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:06:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161931 A challenge to the Andhra Pradesh entry tax on Union-owned vehicles failed because the proviso to section 3(1) was confined to Central Government vehicles used exclusively for defence purposes, and that factual requirement was not established for vehicles purchased for the Nuclear Fuel Complex. The levy was treated as tax on the entry of the vehicle into a local area, not a tax directly on Union property, so Article 285(1) was not attracted. The Court also held that the entry tax law and the Motor Vehicles Act operated in different fields, and the absence of Presidential assent did not make the State Act unconstitutional on the grounds urged. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161931