https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171700 An enhanced motor vehicles tax was upheld as compensatory because the levy substantially corresponded to the cost of roads, bridges and related transport facilities, so it did not fall within the prohibition in Articles 301 or 304(b). Differential treatment of stage carriages and goods carriers was also sustained because taxation may classify distinct vehicle classes on a rational basis, and no arbitrary or hostile discrimination was shown under Article 14. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) failed because a fiscal burden is not unconstitutional merely for making business less profitable; the levy was not shown to be confiscatory or an unreasonable restraint. The impugned tax and notification were upheld. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171700 An enhanced motor vehicles tax was upheld as compensatory because the levy substantially corresponded to the cost of roads, bridges and related transport facilities, so it did not fall within the prohibition in Articles 301 or 304(b). Differential treatment of stage carriages and goods carriers was also sustained because taxation may classify distinct vehicle classes on a rational basis, and no arbitrary or hostile discrimination was shown under Article 14. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) failed because a fiscal burden is not unconstitutional merely for making business less profitable; the levy was not shown to be confiscatory or an unreasonable restraint. The impugned tax and notification were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171700