<?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>2016 (8) TMI 299 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330915</link>
    <description>Low sulphur fuel oil and low sulphur waxy residue brought from outside India into a local area were held liable to entry tax under the Maharashtra Entry Tax Act, because the phrase &quot;from a place outside the State&quot; was read broadly and the schedule entries covering furnace oil and residual furnace oil were applied. The Court also held that Article 286 did not bar the levy, as entry tax remains distinct from sales tax. The limitation plea against the relevant assessments failed because the proceedings arose in a composite refund and assessment framework, the statutory route was invoked, and the pleading on limitation was not established clearly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 299 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330915</link>
      <description>Low sulphur fuel oil and low sulphur waxy residue brought from outside India into a local area were held liable to entry tax under the Maharashtra Entry Tax Act, because the phrase &quot;from a place outside the State&quot; was read broadly and the schedule entries covering furnace oil and residual furnace oil were applied. The Court also held that Article 286 did not bar the levy, as entry tax remains distinct from sales tax. The limitation plea against the relevant assessments failed because the proceedings arose in a composite refund and assessment framework, the statutory route was invoked, and the pleading on limitation was not established clearly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>