The State Legislature is competent under Entry 52 of the Second List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India to levy a tax on the entry of motor vehicles into local areas.

MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) FOR the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Rashid Mohd. v. State of Rajamhan (DB Civil Writ Petition NO. 4102/ 1992) are taken into consideration.

( 3 ) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the validity of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act, 1988 (Act No. 14 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988) being violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 265, 300-A, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. He has also prayed that the demand notice (Anx. 4) may be quashed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner purchased a Tata Chasis new model 1991 Engine No. 692 D023 90935 Chasis No. 364 0465 from M/s. Standard Motors, Daman in consideration of Rs. 3,36,840. 00 inclusive of local Sales tax 3% vide bill No. 1920 dated 17-6-1991. Copy of bill has been annexed as Annex. 1. The petitioner then got the chasis registered in the Stated Daman being DMR-2186-F and certificate of registration was issued by the Registering Authority, Daman on 17-6-1991. The petitioner thereafter brought the said vehicle in the State of Rajasthan and it was registered by the Registering Authority, Jodhpur on 9-9-1991 and registration number was allotted as RJ-19 / G-1415. The petitioner is using aforesaid vehicle as a taxi and necessary permits were taken by the petitioner. By a show cause notice dated 25-2-1992 the petitioner was called upon by the respondent No. 2 to appear for determination of tax liability of the entry tax under the provisions of the Act of 1988. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the petitioner challenges the validity of the aforesaid Act and specially the provisions of Sections 2 (g), 3 (2) (b) and 6 (1) of the Act on the ground that the same are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 265, 300-A, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the main object/ intention of the Act is to prevent diversion of trade to the States with lower rates of Sales Tax on the vehicle in several other States. It is alleged that this is nothing but a tax on purchase of vehicles and it is an additional Sales Tax. It is submitted that it is not covered by entry No. 52 of the Second List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that this tax is in violation, of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India as it restricts the free flow of trade and commerce, within the territory of India.

( 5 ) MR. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the tax has been levied without authority of law and it is beyond the competence of the State Legislature. It is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and it is an additional Sales Tax which is not covered by entry No. 52 of the Second List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in some of the cases dumpers have been purchased outside the State and it is alleged that they are not motor vehicles as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is also submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been repealed and in its place the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has come into force but still the reference to the repealed Act of 1939 is made. Therefore, as a result of the repeal of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the reference of the definition of motor vehicles as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ceases to exist. It is submitted that the taxing statutes have to be construed strictly and in the absence of the definition of the motor vehicles, no tax can be imposed on the motor vehicles in the local areas. Learned counsel have also submitted that the vehicles have been purchased against C Form under Section 7 (3) read with Section 8 (3) (b) of the Central Sales Tax. Act, 1956 and in fact, the sale has not taken place in Rajasthan and consequently n