I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The petitioners, in this batch of writ petitions, who are involved in various commercial activities, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, and import various goods from other States, have challenged the constitutionality, legality and validity of the Arunachal Pradesh Goods Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") and, particularly, Section 3(2)(b) thereof, which imposes tax on the entry of goods, other than non-taxable import, for consumption, use or sale thereof into the local area of the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The levy has been challenged, broadly speaking, on three grounds, namely, (i) that the levy is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the impugned legislation imposes unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse and even if the impugned legislation is treated to impose, in public interest, reasonable restrictions, on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, the impugned legislation cannot survive inasmuch as the legislation, in question, does not have previous sanction of the President, which is the requirement of Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India; (ii) that the impugned levy is discriminatory in nature inasmuch as it impedes import of goods into the State of Arunachal Pradesh from other States and Union territories, whereas the levy in question, does not impose any such restriction in respect of the movement or transportation of goods from one part of the State of Arunachal Pradesh to other part(s) thereof; and (iii) that the impugned legislation aims at augmenting revenue of the State, it is neither regulatory nor compensatory inasmuch as it does not provide any facility to the traders or importers as a class and that the facilities, if any, provided by the State are in the interest of the welfare of the general public and the traders and importers, who are covered by the levy, may be, at best, mere incidental beneficiaries of such facilities, if any, and, hence, the levy is without any authority of law.

3. The respondents resist the writ petitions, their case being, in brief, thus: The imposition of entry tax, in the present case, is intended to generate revenue for the State and that the State utilises the revenue, so generated, for the overall welfare of its people and for developmental activities of the State. At times, unscrupulous dealers/importers were disturbing local markets by bringing goods from outside the States without payment of tax to the Governments of neighbouring States. Such unscrupulous activities lead to unhealthy trade competition between the dealers of the neighbouring States and those of Arunachal Pradesh. The imposition of entry tax, at the border points, checks and prevents goods from entering into the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The impugned levy neither hampers free flow of trade and commerce nor is the impugned levy discriminatory; rather, the levy, in question, protects bona fide interest of the local traders of Arunachal Pradesh. It is the duty of every citizen to pay tax for the transactions, which they conduct in the course of trade and commerce. Hence, in order to check/prevent illegal entry of goods into the State of Arunachal Pradesh, entry tax has been imposed. Such taxation is a reasonable restriction and the State has the authority to impose such restrictions under Article 304(a). The intention of the petitioners is to do business, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, without paying tax on the goods, which are taxable under the impugned legislation. The petitioners do not want to pay tax for importing goods from outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh, though the same goods can be procured by them from the local market by paying local tax. The locally produced goods are levied under local tax and goods imported from other States are levied under entry tax. Such taxation is not discriminatory inasmuch as the local producers pay local tax and the importers and dealers are required to