MC 2730/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN This application seeks modification/variation of order dated 11th June, 2010 to the effect that instead of requirement of furnishing of bank guarantee for the 5 0 per cent of the amount demanded towards entry tax under the provision of Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008, for the period prior to coming into force of the said Act, the petitioner may be allowed to furnish indemnity bond. The State of Assam enacted Assam Entry Tax Act, 2001, which came into fo rce on 1.10.2001, providing for levy of tax on entry of goods into local areas o f Assam. The Act was challenged mainly on the ground that the levy therein was n ot in the nature of compensatory tax and was covered by Article 304(b) of the Co nstitution. In absence of previous sanction of the President, such law was uncon stitutional. This plea was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 3 0th August, 2007, mainly relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jindal Stainless Ltd(2) & Another -vs- State of Haryana and others, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 241. The State of Assam preferred appeal, which is said to be pe nding in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The State of Assam then enacted the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008, providing for sim ilar levy, claiming to have removed the defects on account of which the levy was earlier struck down and also revalidated levy of entry tax for the period prior to the 2008 Act, so as to cover the period after 1.10.2001. The said Act was again challenged, but was upheld by this Court vide its judgmen t in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2009 (1) GLT 427. The new Act was held to be not violative of Article 304 of the Cons titution, and validation of the levy for the earlier period was also upheld. The writ petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court wh ich is said to be pending. Present writ petition also involves challenge to the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008, and having regard to the fact that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supr eme Court, the writ petition appears to have been admitted, even though the issu e is covered by the judgment of this Court. Vide interim order dated 11th June, 2010, it was directed that so far as the demand for the period prior to coming into force the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2 008 was concerned, 50 per cent of the amount may be paid and for the remaining 5 0 per cent, bank guarantee may be furnished. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the petitioner preferred SLP(C) no. 17920/2010. Vide order dated 12th August, 2011, the Hon’ble Supreme Court direct ed that the application for modification/ variation of order dated 11th June, 20 10 may be considered by this Court, sympathetically. We have heard Dr BP Todi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr KN Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that requirement for deposi t of 50% of the demand prior to enactment of Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008 is being met but for the remaining fifty percent, instead of furnishing bank guarantee, t he petitioner may be allowed to furnish indemnity bond of a person having immova ble property with an undertaking that such immovable property to the extent of d emand will be kept available without any encumbrance to meet the liability, if t he demand is finally upheld. Reliance has been placed on order passed by the Hon ’ble Supreme Court on 4.2.2010 in SLP(C) no.5883/2009 (Bongaigaon Refinery & Pet rochemical Ltd vs. State of Assam and others). Learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, however, states that since t he matter is covered in favour of the State and some interim orders have been pa ssed in other cases, prayer for modification may not be accepted. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if order dated 11th June, 2010 is modified to the effect th at for the demand relating to period prior to enactment of Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008, if 50 per cent amount has already been paid, for the remaining 50% instead of bank guarantee, the petitioner be allowed to furnish indemnity bond by a per son having immovable property to the extent of the demand with an undertaking th at such property would be kept unencumbered and in the event of demand being uph eld, the same would be met by the indemnifier. We further direct that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, this modifi cation will become operative for any other connected matters which are pending i n this Court, without requirement of any formal application being filed, unless bank guarantee may have already been furnished. The miscellaneous application is accordingly disposed of.