<?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>2009 (1) TMI 790 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163794</link>
    <description>The article explains that a deeming provision treating the recipient of goods transported through pipelines as the importer was upheld because the legal fiction fit the levy scheme and reflected a sufficient nexus with entry of goods into the local area. It also states that the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008 was treated as compensatory, since the proceeds were earmarked for trade infrastructure and facilities through a dedicated fund and administrative mechanism, making prior Presidential sanction under article 304(b) unnecessary. The validating provisions and the Amendment Ordinance, 2008 were further upheld because the Legislature had competence and cured the earlier defect, with retrospective operation read down to the dates when goods were included in the schedule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 790 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163794</link>
      <description>The article explains that a deeming provision treating the recipient of goods transported through pipelines as the importer was upheld because the legal fiction fit the levy scheme and reflected a sufficient nexus with entry of goods into the local area. It also states that the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008 was treated as compensatory, since the proceeds were earmarked for trade infrastructure and facilities through a dedicated fund and administrative mechanism, making prior Presidential sanction under article 304(b) unnecessary. The validating provisions and the Amendment Ordinance, 2008 were further upheld because the Legislature had competence and cured the earlier defect, with retrospective operation read down to the dates when goods were included in the schedule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>