JUDGMENT

I.M. QUDDUSI, J. — This is the second journey of the petitioners in these writ petitions to this Court occasioned due to the direc¬tion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

2. For the purpose of levy and collection of tax on the entry of goods into the local areas of the State of Orissa for consumption, use or sale therein and matters incidental thereto and connected therewith, Orissa State Legislature promulgated the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 (Orissa Act 11 of 1999) on 20th of September, 1999. Validity of the said Act was challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(a) The State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact the same;

(b) The Act opposed to Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India since it hampered free flow of trade throughout the territory of India;

(c) There was violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 304(b) of the Constitution inasmuch as no previous sanction of the President was obtained and even otherwise no post facto assent of the President under Article 255 of the Constitution had been obtained; and

(d) Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitu¬tion of India is made exclusively to pass any legislation to augment the income of the local authorities and by the definition of ‘local area’ given in the Act, the entire State has been brought under the purview of the Act and hence it is a colourable exercise of power.

3. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court came to hold that the entry tax sought to be introduced by the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 being compensatory in nature is within the legislative competence of the State Government and is intra vires. While declining to strike down the Act as ultra vires, this Court directed as follows :

(1) Unless the basic ingredients, i.e. Entry of scheduled goods for the purpose of consumption, use or sale into a local area of the State are satisfied, the provisions of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 shall not be attracted;

(2) The goods which enter into a local area/areas only for the purpose of transit will not be subject to entry tax; and

(3) Every manufacturer of scheduled goods under Section 26 of the Orissa Entry Tax act shall collect by way of Entry Tax amount equal to the tax payable on the value of the finished products under Section 3 of the Act from the buying dealer either directly or through an intermediary only if the scheduled goods sold are intended for entry into any local area of the State for the purpose of consumption, use or sale.

Against the aforesaid judgment, the writ petitioners carried SLPs to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were converted to Civil Appeals and registered as Civil Appeal Nos.2637 of 2003, 1956 of 2003,2633 of 2003, 2638 of 2003, 3720, 3721 and 3722 of 2003. Those appeals were initially taken up along with C.A. No.3453 of 2002 (M/s. Jindal Stainless Limited and another v. State of Haryana and others) and certain connected matters by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. 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 Chambers of Commerce and others (1996 (9) SCC 136), the matters were referred to a larger Bench by order dated 26.9.2003. The Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Limited & another v. State of Haryana & others, (2006 (4) SCALE 300) concluded as follows :

“In our opinion, the doubt expressed by the referring Bench about the correctness of the decision in Bhagatrams 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.

We reiterate that the doctrine of “direct and immediate effect” of the impugned law on trade and comme