https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190467 Section 4-A of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 and Rule 7 of the 2001 Amendment Rules were upheld because they operated as collection machinery only and did not shift the substantive entry tax liability from the dealer to the manufacturer. The dealer remained the person liable for tax on goods brought into the local area, while the manufacturer functioned as a collecting intermediary. The Court held that the recovery method did not alter the character of the levy or offend Entry 52 of List II, and that possible hardship or administrative inconvenience did not render the scheme unconstitutional. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) also failed as the provision was treated as a reasonable fiscal measure. en-us Wed, 04 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:21:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190467 Section 4-A of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 and Rule 7 of the 2001 Amendment Rules were upheld because they operated as collection machinery only and did not shift the substantive entry tax liability from the dealer to the manufacturer. The dealer remained the person liable for tax on goods brought into the local area, while the manufacturer functioned as a collecting intermediary. The Court held that the recovery method did not alter the character of the levy or offend Entry 52 of List II, and that possible hardship or administrative inconvenience did not render the scheme unconstitutional. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) also failed as the provision was treated as a reasonable fiscal measure. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 04 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190467