JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — These appeals and certain connected matters were initially heard by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. The matters were referred to a larger Bench by order dated 26.9.2003 as the Bench hearing the matters doubted the correctness of the views expressed in M/s. Bhagatram Rajeevkumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. and Others [1995 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 673] which was relied on in a subsequent decision in State of Bihar and Others v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce and Others [1996(9) SCC 136]. The matters were dealt with by a Constitution Bench to decide with certitude the parameters of the judicially evolved concept of “Compensatory Tax” viz-a-viz. Article 301 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution’).

2. The Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [2006(4) SCALE 300] speaking through one of us (Kapadia, J) concluded as follows :

49. In our opinion, the doubt expressed by the referring Bench about the correctness of the decision in Bhagatram’s case 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 673 followed by the judgment in the case of Bihar Chamber of Commerce (1996) 9 SCC 136 was well-founded.

50. We reiterate that the doctrine of