Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« Top Headlines »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money
 ITAT Cuts ?4.85 Lakh Penalty After ?14.02 Lakh Interest Income Was Missed in ITR
 ITR filed under old regime, tax calculated under new regime; Delhi ITAT gives taxpayer relief
 ITAT Delhi Quashes Tax Notice on AMU PG Student’s ?18.34 Lakh Stipend, Declares It Tax-Free Under Section 10(16)
 Advance tax deadline September 15: What happens if you missed the previous instalment payment?
 How much gold jewellery can you keep at home? Nagpur ITAT explains rules on ownership, gifts, taxability
 ?5.31 lakh TDS refund allowed by ITAT Delhi: Why absence of an original ITR did not block the taxpayer
 Missed the ITR Filing Deadline? How to Claim Your Income Tax Refund and Correct Mistakes Before December 31, 2026
 GST Return Preparation & ITC Analysis with TallyPrime (Hinglish Session)
 GST Return Preparation & ITC Analysis with TallyPrime (Hinglish Session)
 GST Return Preparation & ITC Analysis with TallyPrime (Hinglish Session)

Constitution and a non-compensatory tax
October, 30th 2008

A division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held the Haryana Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2008, as unconstitutional. An assessee had challenged the constitutional validity of the Act under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution, arguing that the tax levied was non-compensatory in nature.

A compensatory tax must have some link between the quantum of tax and the facility/services to be created by using such tax amount. The levy of entry tax in the relevant case was for the purpose of development of trade, commerce and industry and for the creation and maintenance of infrastructure.

The assessee contended that the tax in actual was only for augmenting the general revenue of the state without any facility or special benefits to the taxpayers and that no special service, benefit or facility was rendered to the assessee. The department argued that the amount collected was to be credited to a special fund and was to be utilised for infrastructure development for free flow of trade and commerce.

The court observed that the state failed to prove that the levy was compensatory in nature. The court further observed that mere mentioning of words exclusively for development or facilitating trade, commerce and industry are not enough to satisfy the test laid down for holding the levy to be compensatory in character.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2026 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting