<?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>2008 (1) TMI 837 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163168</link>
    <description>Entry tax under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 was held not to satisfy the compensatory tax test under Article 301. The Court applied the principle that a levy is compensatory only where the statute or State material shows broad proportionality between the tax collected and quantifiable benefits provided to the payers. Here, the Act did not disclose any workable mechanism or measurable correlation between the levy and trading facilities, and the State&#039;s evidence of general spending on roads, bridges, water supply, sanitation and urban development did not establish a direct nexus with special benefits to entry tax payers. The levy therefore could not be justified as a permissible restriction on trade.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 837 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163168</link>
      <description>Entry tax under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 was held not to satisfy the compensatory tax test under Article 301. The Court applied the principle that a levy is compensatory only where the statute or State material shows broad proportionality between the tax collected and quantifiable benefits provided to the payers. Here, the Act did not disclose any workable mechanism or measurable correlation between the levy and trading facilities, and the State&#039;s evidence of general spending on roads, bridges, water supply, sanitation and urban development did not establish a direct nexus with special benefits to entry tax payers. The levy therefore could not be justified as a permissible restriction on trade.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>