High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
U. L. BHAT, M. V. TAMASKAR
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 2508 Of 1990
Decided On : 03/29/1995
ENTRY TAX - CONSTITUTIONALITY - LIMESTONE AND COPPER - LEVY OF TAX - VALIDITY - ACT, SECTIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS CHALLENGED - RELEVANT PROVISIONS, INTERPRETATIONS AND INFLUENCES ON COURT'S DECISION - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Entry Tax Act, 1976, and notifications issued thereunder, which imposed a 10% entry tax on limestone and copper entering local areas for consumption, use, or sale.
Finding of the Court:
1. The notifications related to limestone and not lime (stone), and the tax was properly imposed on limestone. 2. The exclusion of limestone from the concessional rate of tax under Section 4(1)(i) of the Act did not violate the equality clause of the Constitution. 3. The State had legislative competence to levy entry tax on limestone and copper, as the field was not occupied by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 4. The notifications imposing the 10% entry tax were not violative of the first proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act, which limited the increase in entry tax rates specified in Schedules II and III. 5. The petitioners, as dealers who caused the entry of limestone and copper into local areas, were liable to pay entry tax, even if they had not purchased the goods. 6. The factory of the petitioners in M.P. No. 405/91 was situated within a local area, and the entry of minerals into the factory was subject to entry tax.
Issues: 1. Whether the notifications imposing a 10% entry tax on limestone and copper were constitutional. 2. Whether the State had legislative competence to levy entry tax on limestone and copper. 3. Whether the petitioners, as dealers who caused the entry of limestone and copper into local areas, were liable to pay entry tax. 4. Whether the factory of the petitioners in M.P. No. 405/91 was subject to entry tax on the entry of minerals.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The notifications were not unconstitutional, as they related to limestone and not lime (stone), and the exclusion of limestone from the concessional rate of tax under Section 4(1)(i) of the Act did not violate the equality clause of the Constitution. 2. The State had legislative competence to levy entry tax on limestone and copper, as the field was not occupied by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 3. The petitioners, as dealers who caused the entry of limestone and copper into local areas, were liable to pay entry tax, even if they had not purchased the goods. 4. The factory of the petitioners in M.P. No. 405/91 was situated within a local area, and the entry of minerals into the factory was subject to entry tax.
Final Decision: The petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Entry Tax Act, 1976, and the notifications issued thereunder were dismissed.
( 1 ) IN some of these writ petitions, provisions of Entry Tax Act, 1976 (for short the Act) are challenged as unconstitutional. In all the writ petitions, except M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, the notification dated 29-6- 1990 of the State Government issued under Section 4-A (2) of the Act specifying local areas in goods for imposition of entry tax at the rate of 10% for limestone and levy and collection of such entry tax are challenged. In M. P. No. 1520 of 1991, levy of entry tax at similar rate on entry of limestone within local area arc challenged. In M. P. No. 152 of 1991, similar levy of entry-tax into a local area is challenged. In some of the writ petitions, subsequent notification dated 2-2-199 is challenged.
( 2 ) WE have heard various counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner have urged the following points for consideration: (i) The impugned notifications relate time (stone) and not limestone and, therefore the rate of tax imposed by the notification cannot be applied to entry of limestone into local areas caused by the petitioners except petitioner in M. P. No. 1520 of 1991. (ii) Section 4 (1) (i) of the Act is unconstitutional. (iii) Provision for levy of entry tax on limestone is beyond the legislative competence of the State. (iv) The notifications are contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and, therefore, beyond the competence of the State Government. (v) The petitioners who quarry limestone do not acquire or obtain the same and cannot be taxed. (vi) Petitioners are not dealers in limestone -and hence entry tax cannot be levied. (vii) The factory of the petitioners in M. P. No. 405 of 1991 cannot be regarded as a local area and since they are not causing entry of limestone into the factory premises, entry tax cannot be levied.
( 4 ) THE Act has been enacted by the State Legislature to levy tax on entry of goods in lieu of octroi tax collected by local bodies, the main objective being to make transportation of goods trouble-free by abolition of Octroi Nakas, Entry tax is levied to compensate thelocal bodies for loss of octroi tax. There are three schedules appended to the" Act. Schedule I relates to goods which are exempt from entry tax. They are goods specified in Entries 6,41 and 42 of the said Schedule. Schedules II incorporates certain kinds of goods and prescribes rate of entry tax for entry of each type of goods. Schedule III is in three parts. Part 3 of Schedule III is a residuary provision for all goods other than those included in Schedules I and II and parts 1 and 2 of the third Schedule. The rates of tax are also prescribed. Limestone and copper with which we are concerned In these cases are not Included in Schedules I or II or parts 1 and 2 of the third Schedule. Part 3 would apply to them. On these goods, the rate of tax is 1 %.
( 5 ) SECTION 3 deals with incidence of taxation. Entry tax shall be levied, (a) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule II into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein, at the rates specified in the Schedule, (b) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule III into each local area for consumption in Schedule III into each local area for consumption or use of such goods as raw-material or incidental goods or as packing material or in the execution of works contracts, but not for sale and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act who has effected entry of such goods at the rates mentioned in Schedule III. The provisos contain certain exceptions.
( 6 ) SECTION 4 deals with the rate at which entry tax is to be charged. Entry tax payable by a dealer shall be charged on his taxable quantum relating to goods specified in Schedules II and III at the rates mentioned in the Schedule. 'taxable quantum
referred to : Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar
M/s. Hiralal Ratan Lal v. S.T.O. Kanpur
V. Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. Union of India
M/s. Orissa Cement Limited v. State of Orissa
India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu
State of U.P.v. Synthetica and Chemicals Limited
Bhagatram Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh
Shaktikumar M. Sancheti v. State of Maharashtra
Diamond Sugar MillsLimited v. State of M.P.
Hiralal Rameshwar Prasad v. State of M.P.
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant v. Union of India
M.P. Lime Manufacturers Association v. State of M.P.
Syntheties and Chemicals Limited v. State of U.P.
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.