Legislative authority under Articles 245 and 246 allows for necessary amendments to tax laws, emphasized by the context of the West Bengal Taxes on Entry of Goods Act.

O R D E R

1. We heard Arvind P. Datar, Mr. Balbir Singh, Mr. Shyam Divan, and Mr. Kavin Gulati for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal.

2. As requested for by Mr. Arvind P. Datar, the petition being Diary No.15479/2025 although not on board today, yet is treated to be on today’s board. The defects, if any, shall be cured by the petitioner.

3. Application seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.14920/2025.

4. The subject-matter of challenge before the High Court was to the constitutional validity of the “West Bengal Taxes on Entry of Goods into the Local Areas” Act, 2012 as amended by the “West Bengal Finance Act 2017” and the rules made thereunder including the notifications issued thereunder.

5. The original petitioners prayed for a declaration that the State has no power to levy tax on entry of goods into the local areas under the Act of 2012 and the Rules made thereunder, meant for export to territories outside India.

6. The challenge failed before the High Court.

7. In such circumstances, the petitioners (original petitioners)

are here before this Court with their respective petitions.

8. Mr. Dwivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal submitted that the issue by and large is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of “ State of Telangana v. Tirumala Constructions ” (2023) 15 SCC 578 more particularly Para Nos.78, 89 and 99 to 102 respectively, including the 9-Judge bench decision in the case of “Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2017) 12 SCC 1 ”.

9. In Tirumala Constructions(supra), the Court held thus:- “78. Section 19 seeks to achieve three aims. The first is to preserve the existing status quo with regard to the State and Central indirect tax regime, for a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Amendment or till a new law is enacted whichever is earlier. The second is authorising the competent legislatures i.e. the State Legislatures and Parliament to amend existing laws which were in force in States and other parts of the country (obviously both Central and State laws). The third was the repeal of such laws. Now, that Section 19 was meant to be transitional cannot be doubted. In its absence, the several hundreds of State enactments and central laws which were in force, would have been jeopardised. Other than Section 19 there is no saving provision which is part of the Amendment. It is questionable whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, would have applied on its own force. Consequently, Parliament, acting in a constituent capacity, amended the substantive parts of the Constitution, and also, at the same time ensured through Section 19 that limited operation of existing laws continued till the legal regime was changed in accordance with the amended parts of the Constitution. Keeping in mind that the Amendment, denuded the States — and even Parliament of legislative authority in regard to the pre- existing (i.e. pre-amendment) powers and fields of taxation, the absence of such a transitional provision might have been catastrophic. It was in this context that Section 19 also clarified that not only were the laws to be continued, in force but also that the States — and Parliament, could amend, or repeal them.

B. Whether the power of amendment or repeal is subject to limitations under Section 19.

89. In this context, Section 143(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ram Krishna Ra