Entry tax on imported goods failed compensatory, non-discrimination, and trade-freedom tests under Part XIII.

Entry tax on notified goods entering local areas was analysed under Part XIII and held not to qualify as a compensatory levy, because no exclusive service or workable nexus between the tax and any special benefit to the taxed class was shown. The levy was also found discriminatory under article 304(a) since it applied only to goods brought from outside the State, and the adjustments under the statute did not cure that discrimination in all cases. Independently, the levy was treated as a restriction on free movement of trade and failed article 304(b) because no reasonable restriction in public interest or prior Presidential sanction was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the entry tax under section 3 of the Karnataka Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods Act, 2004 was a compensatory levy outside Part XIII of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the levy discriminated against goods brought from outside the State and violated article 304(a); (iii) whether, even apart from article 304(a), the levy offended article 304(b) for want of a reasonable restriction in public interest and previous sanction of the President.

Issue (i): Whether the entry tax under section 3 of the Karnataka Special Tax on Entry of Certain Goods Act, 2004 was a compensatory levy outside Part XIII of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: A compensatory levy requires a special or exclusive service or benefit to the class of taxpayers and a workable correlation between the levy and the expenditure for such service. The Court found that the State had not shown any exclusive service to the assessees. The asserted link based on general civic facilities such as roads, lighting and drainage, and the claim that importers represented a percentage of users, did not establish the necessary legal character of a compensatory levy. The material produced also failed to show a reliable nexus between the revenue collected under the Act and the expenditure allegedly incurred for the benefit of the taxed class.

Conclusion: The levy was not a compensatory tax and could not escape scrutiny under Part XIII.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy discriminated against goods brought from outside the State and violated article 304(a).

Analysis: Article 304(a) prohibits discriminatory taxation of imported goods as against similar local goods. The Court held that discrimination was inherent in section 3 because tax was imposed only on entry of notified goods from outside the State into a local area. The attempted justification under section 4, by reducing the tax liability by reference to tax already paid elsewhere or by reference to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, did not remove the discrimination in all situations. The argument that parity could be achieved by combining the effect of different enactments was rejected in view of binding precedent of the Court and the failure of the State to meet the constitutional test.

Conclusion: The levy violated article 304(a) and was discriminatory.

Issue (iii): Whether, even apart from article 304(a), the levy offended article 304(b) for want of a reasonable restriction in public interest and previous sanction of the President.

Analysis: The Court held that article 304(b) operates independently where a taxing statute also restricts the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. A levy imposed directly on the movement of goods into a local area was treated as one that impedes free movement. The State did not establish that the restriction was reasonable and in public interest, and it was undisputed that the Bill had not obtained the previous sanction of the President. The compensatory-tax argument also failed to exclude the application of article 304(b).

Conclusion: The levy offended article 304(b) as well.

Final Conclusion: Section 3 of the Act was struck down as unconstitutional for infringing the constitutional freedom of trade and for imposing a discriminatory and non-compensatory burden on imported goods.

Ratio Decidendi: An entry tax confined to goods imported from outside the State is unconstitutional if it is discriminatory under article 304(a), is not shown to be a compensatory levy, and also fails the independent requirements of article 304(b) where it operates as a restriction on free movement of trade, commerce and intercourse.

---