https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164150 The Allahabad HC upheld the Punjab infrastructure levy under the 1998 and 2002 enactments, holding that the State had legislative competence under the Seventh Schedule and that incidental use of sales tax machinery did not affect validity. It further ruled that the impost was a fee, not a tax, because the collections were earmarked for infrastructure and a broad correlation between payment and public benefit was sufficient; strict mathematical quid pro quo was not required. The Court also sustained the retrospective rules and clarificatory notification, and rejected challenges based on discrimination, Article 301, Article 286, fund appropriation, and alleged excessive burden. en-us Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164150 The Allahabad HC upheld the Punjab infrastructure levy under the 1998 and 2002 enactments, holding that the State had legislative competence under the Seventh Schedule and that incidental use of sales tax machinery did not affect validity. It further ruled that the impost was a fee, not a tax, because the collections were earmarked for infrastructure and a broad correlation between payment and public benefit was sufficient; strict mathematical quid pro quo was not required. The Court also sustained the retrospective rules and clarificatory notification, and rejected challenges based on discrimination, Article 301, Article 286, fund appropriation, and alleged excessive burden. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164150