https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376948 Maharashtra's entry tax regime was analysed against Article 304(a) and Entry 52 of List II. The Court treated Article 304(a) as prohibiting only hostile discriminatory taxation, not mere differentiation, and held that the scheme's entry tax, GST-related reduction, and VAT set-off framework aimed to place imported goods on par with local goods; the absence of further CST adjustment did not make the levy unconstitutional. It also held that Entry 52 permits a State levy on entry of goods into local areas, and rejected the argument that tax collection or retention must be confined to each local body. The challenge based on double taxation therefore failed. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376948 Maharashtra's entry tax regime was analysed against Article 304(a) and Entry 52 of List II. The Court treated Article 304(a) as prohibiting only hostile discriminatory taxation, not mere differentiation, and held that the scheme's entry tax, GST-related reduction, and VAT set-off framework aimed to place imported goods on par with local goods; the absence of further CST adjustment did not make the levy unconstitutional. It also held that Entry 52 permits a State levy on entry of goods into local areas, and rejected the argument that tax collection or retention must be confined to each local body. The challenge based on double taxation therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 04 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376948