From Revenue Extraction To Social Restitution: Ancient Indian Taxation And The Evolution Of Equity, Welfare, And Fiscal Justice

Abstract

This article is not merely a collection of rates and levies, and the revenue offices, but a jurisprudence of extraction, protection and public welfare. It emphasizes primarily on Arthashastra of Kautilya and Manusmriti, and then tries to draw a comparative analytical framework by invoking the theory of fiscal-sociology, tax-compliance and restitution theory of modern times. The fundamental idea is that there is a functional need for the legitimacy of revenue collection: the ruler had something to do: to ensure productive activity, maintain order, provide justice and promote the well-being of the polity. It is not a modern right of restitution nor it is a doctrine of ancient Indian law of unjust enrichment. Instead, it is more of a framework, a norm that is revealed in contexts where its elements were lacking in the service of extraction that have a problematic moral and political character within the texts. It is then proposed that there is a limited restitutionary version, that is, that if the public authority receives a fiscal contribution (or a "contribution" of any kind) but, on a regular basis for a period of time, is unable to provide the protection and welfare services it is required to provide, then its right to receive that contribution is also affected. The principle of reciprocity, the accountability of administration, the protection of the productive basis of the community and the distributive function of public finance are examples of continuities within the current concept of fiscal justice, but also differences, such as in constitutionalism, democracy, individual rights, the progressive nature of taxes, and the enforceability of public-law obligations. Finally, the ancient Indian financial philosophy, though it's quite a new idea for a new term of public bond, it has not been detached from the old connotations.