2018 (5) TMI 652 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Entry tax - scope of State - Whether the entire State can be treated as local area for the purposes of entry tax? - Whether entry tax can be levied on the goods which are directly imported from other countries and brought in a particular State? - Whether the benefits given to certain categories of manufacturers would amount to discrimination under Section 304? Held that - The contention that the impugned Act was not covered under Entry 52 List II since Entry 52 is in essence power of local bodies to levy octroi and thus State legislature had no legislative competence to impose entry tax, is no more res-integra, having been repelled by the Supreme Court in Fr. Williams 2017 (10) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . The contention that the entire State cannot be treated as one local area, is devoid of any merit, as the definition clause of local area under Section 2 (d) did not treat the entire State as one local area. The other provisions of the Act also do not amount to treating the entire State as one local area vis-a-vis the taxable event and merely because the tax is collected as general revenue and credited to a central fund would not result in altering the taxable event nor would be fatal to the vires of the Act. Thus, the first question framed for consideration by the Supreme Court, does not directly arise in the context of the provisions of the impugned Act. The contention that the entry tax is a local levy, the power of a local body to impose such tax and the State Government was not competent to realise entry tax as general revenue or to direct the same being credited to a central fund or its appropriation for facilitating trade, commerce and industry in the entire State, rather than passing it to the local body from where the tax had been collected, is based on a wrong premise that the entry tax is a local levy and not the power of the State Government to impose tax. None of the provisions of the Act suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of power as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners. The provisions of the Act relating to reversal of levy of tax (Section 5), rebate (Section 6) and exemption (Section 7) are neither violative of Article 14 nor Article 304 (a). The rebate and exemption notifications, which have been challenged, also pass muster of Article 14 and Article 304 (a). The doctrine of unbroken package having been abandoned by Courts in the United States where the doctrine was propounded and no more followed by the Supreme Court would not come to the rescue of IOC in contending that crude oil could not be subjected to entry tax in course of its transportation to Mathura Refinery through the underground pipelines - goods which are directly imported from other country could, in a given case, be subject matter of entry tax. Section 12 of the Act was only a machinery provision to facilitate collection of tax and prevent its evasion. It was neither illegal nor arbitrary nor resulted in shifting the liability of the person who in fact was liable under the Act nor the taxable event. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Competence.
2. Treatment of Entire State as One Local Area.
3. Inclusion of Cantonment Areas.
4. Levy of Entry Tax on Imported Goods.
5. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 and Article 304(a).
6. Excessive Delegation of Power.
7. Validity of Various Provisions (Sections 2(h), 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15).
8. Doctrine of Unbroken Package.
9. Validity of Notifications.

Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence:
The petitioners contended that Entry 52 of List II is the power of local bodies to impose taxes, not the State. The court rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Fr. Williams which upheld the State's competence to levy entry tax under Entry 52 List II. The court emphasized that the manner of collection (general tax or local tax) is a matter of legislative policy.

2. Treatment of Entire State as One Local Area:
The court held that the definition of "local area" under Section 2(d) does not treat the entire State as one local area. The argument that other provisions of the Act effectively treat the entire State as one local area was rejected. The court found that the tax being collected as general revenue and credited to a central fund does not alter the taxable event nor invalidate the Act.

3. Inclusion of Cantonment Areas:
The petitioners argued that including cantonment areas within the definition of "local area" encroaches upon the Union's legislative field under Entry 3 List I. The court rejected this contention, stating that the legislative fields under Entry 3 List I and Entry 52 List II are separate and distinct, with no overlapping or conflict.

4. Levy of Entry Tax on Imported Goods:
The court upheld the levy of entry tax on imported goods, stating that Entries 41 and 83 of List I operate in separate fields from Entry 52 List II. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Fr. Williams and Jindal Stainless-II, which clarified that the taxable event for entry tax is distinct from that for customs duty.

5. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 and Article 304(a):
The court rejected the argument that the Act discriminates between dealers similarly situated. It held that the levy of entry tax is non-discriminatory, as it applies uniformly to goods imported from other States and those produced within the State. The court also upheld the validity of rebate and exemption notifications, finding no violation of Article 14 or Article 304(a).

6. Excessive Delegation of Power:
The petitioners argued that Sections 4(1), 6, 7, and 15 suffer from excessive delegation of power. The court rejected this contention, stating that the provisions contain sufficient guidelines and checks, such as the maximum rate of tax and the requirement for legislative approval of notifications.

7. Validity of Various Provisions:
- Section 2(h) proviso (iv): The court upheld the provision, stating it is a legislative device for quantifying tax liability where the price is not ascertainable or verifiable.
- Section 12: The court found this to be a machinery provision to facilitate tax collection and prevent evasion, not altering the taxable event.
- Section 14: The court upheld the provision, stating it does not violate Article 266 as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Fr. Williams.

8. Doctrine of Unbroken Package:
The court rejected the application of the doctrine of unbroken package, stating it has been abandoned by both Indian and U.S. courts. The court held that crude oil becomes part of the land mass upon crossing the customs barrier and is liable to entry tax upon entering a local area.

9. Validity of Notifications:
The court upheld the validity of various notifications, including those granting rebates and exemptions, finding no discrimination or violation of constitutional provisions.

Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007, and its various provisions. The State was permitted to encash bank guarantees or other security furnished by the petitioners.