Manufacturers of beer and IMFL are liable for entry tax as they cause the entry of goods into local areas, per relevant sections of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, despite the absence of a specific notification under Section 3B.

1. A short and interesting question falls for consideration in these appeals. The issue is whether the appellants are liable for the payment of entry tax under S.3 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976'). The High Court has repelled the Challenge of the appellants. Aggrieved, they are in appeal(s) before us.

. BRIEF FACTS: -
CASE OF THE APPELLANTS: -

2. In the writ petition filed by the appellants, their case was that they are involved in bottling and supplying of Beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short 'IMFL'). The appellants hold license under the M.P. Excise Act, 1944 to manufacture and supply beer and IMFL. They supply the said goods after obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the officer - in - charge posted at the factory. It was contended that the goods are transported to the State Government warehouse and the transportation pass is issued in the name of the concerned warehouse. According to the appellants, the sales are made by the warehouse in charge to the authorized retailers, who are also license holders for retail sale of IMFL and beer.

3. The appellants averred that under the M.P. Excise Act, FL - 9 license is to manufacture IMFL products and FL - 9A license is to produce franchisee products. FL - 9 and FL - 9A licensees can sell to FL - 10 licensees only. According to the appellants, the FL - 10 licensee in M.P. is the Excise Department, which runs the State Government warehouse. The retailers hold the FL - 1 license and they purchase from FL - 10 licensee after issuance of NOC by the respective District Excise Officers. According to the appellants, the sale is made by the Government warehouses to the retailers through the sale bill issued in the name of the retailers; that the Government warehouses deposit the amount payable to the appellants in their bank accounts and send intimation in respect of the goods sold in respect of the appellants to the Commissioner, who in turn transfers the amount from the bank of the Department to the appellants' bank account. The appellants submit that the retailers pay license fee in equal installments and at that point were paying 6% 'Parivahan Skulk' (transportation expenses) by depositing the same with the Treasury. The appellants contend that the transaction is between the Government warehouses and the retailers.

. CASE OF THE RESPONDENT - STATE: -

4. In the return filed by the State, they contended that the State Government neither purchases nor sells the liquor. The State referred to three documents that had a crucial bearing on the disposal of the present case.
i) First is the communication issued by the Additional Secretary, (Finance Department), Government of M.P. to the Excise Commissioner under the subject "Collection of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and provision of its supply to its retail licensees". The communication states that the Manufacturing Units are allowed to store liquor in the departmental godowns. The Manufacturing units declare the Ex - godown price of their liquor in due course and supply of liquor is effected to retail contractors by adding 5% additional fee on this cost. Retail contractors would deposit the amount with the specified bank and the bank would deposit the amount through the treasury in the govern