https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162967 Entry tax under the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 was held not to be proved compensatory in character for Article 304(b) purposes. A compensatory levy must satisfy the principle of equivalence by showing quantifiable benefits to the payer class and a proportional link between the tax collected and the special facilities provided. The State bore the burden of justifying the levy with relevant material and data, but the record showed only general use of collections for developmental and civic purposes through the consolidated fund. That did not establish any specific, measurable or additional benefit to scheduled traders, so the levy failed the compensatory tax test. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2024 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162967 Entry tax under the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 was held not to be proved compensatory in character for Article 304(b) purposes. A compensatory levy must satisfy the principle of equivalence by showing quantifiable benefits to the payer class and a proportional link between the tax collected and the special facilities provided. The State bore the burden of justifying the levy with relevant material and data, but the record showed only general use of collections for developmental and civic purposes through the consolidated fund. That did not establish any specific, measurable or additional benefit to scheduled traders, so the levy failed the compensatory tax test. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162967