<?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>2025 (2) TMI 99 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765553</link>
    <description>The earlier invalidation of the West Bengal Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2012 could not survive after Jindal Stainless Ltd. removed the constitutional foundation on which it rested, and that judgment was set aside. The 2012 Act remained in force when amended by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, because the interim arrangement kept the statutory regime operative and the validity of the Act had not been finally extinguished. The 2017 retrospective amendments were upheld as within legislative competence and permissible under the post-GST transitional framework. They were also held not to be discriminatory under Article 304(a) absent proof of hostile discrimination. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary orders were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 17:48:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 99 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765553</link>
      <description>The earlier invalidation of the West Bengal Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2012 could not survive after Jindal Stainless Ltd. removed the constitutional foundation on which it rested, and that judgment was set aside. The 2012 Act remained in force when amended by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, because the interim arrangement kept the statutory regime operative and the validity of the Act had not been finally extinguished. The 2017 retrospective amendments were upheld as within legislative competence and permissible under the post-GST transitional framework. They were also held not to be discriminatory under Article 304(a) absent proof of hostile discrimination. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary orders were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>