1. Appeals concerning entry tax on goods imported from foreign countries into State local areas – legislative competence challenged. (Para 2 , 3 )
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
State of Kerala - Petitioner
Versus
Fr. William Fernandez - Respondent
C.A. Nos.3381 to 3400 of 1998
Decided On : 09-10-2017
1. Appeals concerning entry tax on goods imported from foreign countries into State local areas – legislative competence challenged. (Para 2 , 3 )
2. Petitioners: Acts not intended to cover imports; encroach on Union powers; import continues till factory. States: charging sections cover all origins; State fully competent. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
3. Entry tax legislations include imported goods; State competent under Entry 52 List II; import ends at customs clearance; original package doctrine inapplicable. (Para 44 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 )
4. State legislatures can levy entry tax under Entry 52 List II on imported goods after customs clearance; does not encroach on Union powers. (Para 67 , 83 , 105 , 123 , 144 )
5. Dismissed appeals against Orissa and Patna High Courts; allowed State of Kerala appeals; set aside Jharkhand judgment; liberty to raise Article 304(a) issue. (Para 145 , 146 )
Yes, under Entry 52 List II, the tax is on entry into local area for consumption, use or sale and does not encroach on Union's customs power. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 )
Import ends when goods cross the customs barrier and are cleared for home consumption; thereafter they are part of the mass of goods within the country. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 )
No, the doctrine has been disapproved by the Federal Court and the Supreme Court; imported goods after customs clearance are not immune from nondiscriminatory state taxes. (Para 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 )
No, the definition includes 'all other charges incidental to purchase', which covers customs duty; omission is not indicative of legislative intent to exclude imports. (Para 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 )
No, the constitutional entry is wide and does not restrict the levy to local authorities; the State may collect and distribute the tax as a matter of legislative policy. (Para 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 )
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals relate to entry tax levied on goods imported from different countries and brought into local area of a State. The legislative competence of the State Legislature to impose entry tax on the goods imported from outside the country entering into local area of the State is questioned. The State legislations are also questioned on the ground that the entry tax legislations do not contemplate levy of an entry tax on goods imported from outside the country. In this batch of appeals we are concerned only with entry tax legislations of States, namely, State of Orissa, State of Bihar, State of Kerala and State of Jharkhand, the relevant provisions of which statutes shall be noticed hereinafter.
3. A nine-Judge constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless v. State of Haryana and another, 2016 (11) Scale 1, had answered several questions pertaining to entry tax legislations of different States, which has largely settled various issues relating to entry tax. However, the issue pertaining to levibility of entry tax on the imported/foreign goods was left to be answered by regular Bench. Answering the reference following was stated in answer No.10:
"The questions whether the entire State can be notified as a local area and whether entry tax can be levied on goods entering landmass of India from another country are left to be determined in appropriate proceedings.” (emphasis by us)
4. As noted above this batch of appeals consists of appeals from the judgments of Orissa High Court, Patna High Court, Kerala High Court and Jharkhand High Court. Large number of appeals have been filed questioning the different judgments rendered by different High Courts. For deciding this batch of appeals it is sufficient to notice facts of few of the appeals of each State. The parties shall be referred to as described in the High Courts.
State of Orissa
5. In the appeals arising out of the judgments of the High Court of Orissa, most of the appeals have been filed against judgments dated 18.02.2008 and 09.10.2012. Judgments of different dates were also delivered by the Orissa High Court following its judgments dated 18.02.2008 and 09.10.2012. There are appeals containing different facts and grounds which shall separately be noticed.
6. With regard to judgment dated 18.02.2008 delivered in bunch of writ petitions, we take up Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.18405 of 2008 – M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Anr. The State of Orissa enacted Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “1999 Act”) to provide for levy of tax on entry of the scheduled goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein and matters incidental thereto and connected therewith.
7. The Steel Authority of India, a public sector undertaking of Government of India filed the writ petition challenging the legality and constitutional validity of Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 and Orissa Entry Tax Rules, 2000 in so far as it seeks to levy and collect entry tax on imported goods including scheduled goods when brought into the mines premises of the writ petitioner No.1 Company at Purunapani, Kalta, Barsua in the District of Sundergarh and Bolani in the District Keonjhar. The validity of the Act was challenged on various grounds including the ground that 1999 Act is ultra vires to the Constitution. It was further pleaded that provisions of 1999 Act do not provide for levying of tax on imported raw materials for its plants and machineries which is used/consumed at its factory for the manufacture of its finished products. The grounds were also raised that levy is not compensatory.
8. The writ petition was heard along with the bunch of writ petitions raising some similar and some different grounds. The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 18.02.2008 upheld the vires of 1999 Act.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.12424-12425 of 2008 – M/s. Simples Infrastructures Limited v. State of Orissa & Ors. also needs to be noted:
9. The w
Jindal Stainless v. State of Haryana and another
Miss Kishori Shetty v. The King
CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd.
Mathuram Agrawal v. State of M.P.
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar
State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.
State of A.P. & Ors. v. Mcdowell & Co. & Ors.
The Province of Madras v. Messrs. Boddu Paidanna and Sons.
Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwal of Kamptee v. Secretary, Municipal Committee, Kamptee
Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd., Birlanagar, Gwalior v. State of Madhya Pradesh
D.G. Gose and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
State of Travancore-Cochin & Ors. v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, Quilon
J.V. Gokal & Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Sales Tax (Inspection) & Ors.
Kiran Spinning Mills v. Collector of Customs
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 232 Referred
State of Bombay & Anr. v. F.N. Balsara
Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey & Ors.
Garware Nylons Ltd. v. Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagar Palika and Ors
Shroff & Co. v. Municipal Corpn of Greater Bombay
Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana
State of Bombay v. S.F.N. Balsara
ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Ors.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi and Anr
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.