<?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 (7) TMI 1184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164746</link>
    <description>Sections 4B and 4BB of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, together with the related notification on motor vehicles, were found to impose a discriminatory entry levy on goods imported from outside the State. The court reasoned that article 304(a) requires comparison within the same tax levy, so a reduction for tax paid under a different enactment did not remove the discrimination against imported vehicles. The levy was also held not to be compensatory or regulatory and to impede free trade and commerce under article 301. The impugned provisions and notification were therefore unconstitutional and liable to be quashed, with consequential refund of amounts collected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164746</link>
      <description>Sections 4B and 4BB of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, together with the related notification on motor vehicles, were found to impose a discriminatory entry levy on goods imported from outside the State. The court reasoned that article 304(a) requires comparison within the same tax levy, so a reduction for tax paid under a different enactment did not remove the discrimination against imported vehicles. The levy was also held not to be compensatory or regulatory and to impede free trade and commerce under article 301. The impugned provisions and notification were therefore unconstitutional and liable to be quashed, with consequential refund of amounts collected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>