<?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>2005 (10) TMI 515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162524</link>
    <description>A residuary entry in the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 was construed to permit notification of cork for entry tax where the goods were not otherwise covered by earlier specific entries. The notification was held to operate within section 3(1) read with the residuary entry, because a narrow construction would defeat the statutory scheme. The constitutional challenge also failed: the levy was treated as compensatory, no hostile discrimination was shown under Article 14, and a tax imposed according to law did not infringe Article 19(1)(g). The challenge based on Articles 301 and 304(b), and on excessive delegation, was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2014 12:06:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 515 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162524</link>
      <description>A residuary entry in the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 was construed to permit notification of cork for entry tax where the goods were not otherwise covered by earlier specific entries. The notification was held to operate within section 3(1) read with the residuary entry, because a narrow construction would defeat the statutory scheme. The constitutional challenge also failed: the levy was treated as compensatory, no hostile discrimination was shown under Article 14, and a tax imposed according to law did not infringe Article 19(1)(g). The challenge based on Articles 301 and 304(b), and on excessive delegation, was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>