Entry tax and trade freedom: levy failed as non-compensatory and lacked previous Presidential sanction.

Entry tax on goods brought from outside the State or India was upheld as a levy on entry into a local area, not a tax on sale or purchase in the course of import or export, so Article 286 did not invalidate it and Article 304(a) was not attracted. The Court further held that a levy restricting movement of goods is a restriction on trade under Article 301 unless shown to be compensatory; here, the State failed to demonstrate quantifiable benefits, measurable facilities, or a discernible equivalence between the tax and any reimbursement to the payers as a class. In the absence of previous Presidential sanction, the levy was unconstitutional under Article 304(b).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned entry tax on goods brought from outside the State or outside India was a tax on sale or purchase and was hit by Article 286 of the Constitution of India or could be sustained under Article 304(a). (ii) Whether the levy was a compensatory tax with identifiable quantifiable benefits so as to fall outside Article 301 and avoid the requirement of previous Presidential sanction under Article 304(b).

Issue (i): Whether the impugned entry tax on goods brought from outside the State or outside India was a tax on sale or purchase and was hit by Article 286 of the Constitution of India or could be sustained under Article 304(a).

Analysis: The charging provision imposed tax on entry of goods into a local area, while Article 286 restricts only taxes on sale or purchase in the course of import or export. The taxable event under the entry tax law was entry into the local area after the goods crossed the customs barrier, and not the sale or purchase of the goods. The Court also held that Article 304(a) was not attracted because the levy was not designed to equalize or offset the tax burden on similar locally manufactured goods by reference to the tax regime of the place of origin, but was a uniform levy on entry into local areas.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 286 failed and the levy was not saved or invalidated on the footing of Article 304(a).

Issue (ii): Whether the levy was a compensatory tax with identifiable quantifiable benefits so as to fall outside Article 301 and avoid the requirement of previous Presidential sanction under Article 304(b).

Analysis: A levy that restricts the movement of goods is a restriction on trade, commerce and intercourse under Article 301 unless it qualifies as a compensatory tax. Applying the principle of equivalence, the Court held that compensatory tax must facially or by reliable material disclose quantifiable and measurable benefits to the class of taxpayers, and the burden lies on the State to show a discernible link between the levy and specific facilities or benefits. The Act and the State's affidavit did not disclose any adequate data, project details, or measurable correlation between the tax and the benefits allegedly funded. The purposes set out in the Act were largely of a general developmental character and did not establish reimbursement or recompense for the payers as a class. Since the levy was not shown to be compensatory, the absence of previous Presidential sanction was fatal.

Conclusion: The levy was not compensatory and was ultra vires Article 304(b) for want of previous Presidential sanction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned entry tax legislation was held unconstitutional and unenforceable, the writ petitions succeeding on the core challenge to the levy.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax on entry of goods into local areas that restricts the flow of trade under Article 301 can be sustained only if the statute or the State's material demonstrates a compensatory levy based on quantifiable and measurable benefits on the principle of equivalence; absent such showing, the levy remains subject to Article 304(b) and requires previous Presidential sanction.

---