<?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>2003 (2) TMI 485 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172984</link>
    <description>Industrial salt was treated as distinct from edible common salt, and the classification was upheld because taxation allows a wide field for intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the levy&#039;s object. The retrospective validating law was also sustained since it applied uniformly to a legally identifiable class of industrial importers and was not invalid merely because one undertaking was the only practical target. Octroi was characterised as a regulatory and compensatory levy on entry of goods for local use, so it did not infringe the freedom of trade or the right to carry on business; the refund claim was further weakened by unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2015 10:27:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 485 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172984</link>
      <description>Industrial salt was treated as distinct from edible common salt, and the classification was upheld because taxation allows a wide field for intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the levy&#039;s object. The retrospective validating law was also sustained since it applied uniformly to a legally identifiable class of industrial importers and was not invalid merely because one undertaking was the only practical target. Octroi was characterised as a regulatory and compensatory levy on entry of goods for local use, so it did not infringe the freedom of trade or the right to carry on business; the refund claim was further weakened by unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>