IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7166 of 2008 M/S RELIANCE BIG TV LTD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. L.N. Rastogi, Senior Advocate Mr. M. K. Ambastha-I, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General-III Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-III --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 12th August, 2008. Leave to amend prayer clauses is granted. Let correction be made forthwith. 2. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: (i) For a DECLARATION or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring that Section 3 of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into the Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1993 as amended by the Amendment Act 2006 is unconstitutional and beyond legislative competence of the State, and ultra vires Article 246(1) of the Constitution of India in so far as it purports to impose a levy on goods imported from abroad or outside the State being violative of Serial Nos. 41, 83 and 92-A of List 1 to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India besides violative of Articles 301 and 304(a) not being saved by Article 304(b) and liable to be declared void and unenforceable. (ii) For a declaration that the levy of entry tax – as per Gazette Notification dated 19.4.2007 with retrospective effect from 29.8.2006 without prescribing rate of tax payable on goods – is invalid as it suffers from the vice - 2 - of vagueness as held by the Patna High Court in the Indian Oil’s case since reported in 2007 BRLJ at page 58. (iii) For a declaration that the notification as contained in S.O. 38 dated 1-4-2008 is discriminatory because the rate of Entry Tax prescribed therein is more than the rate of 4% prescribed under the VAT Act. (iv) For refund of the amounts paid by the petitioner- company towards entry tax, along with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit of taxes from time to time, on declaration of the impugned Act as void, illegal and unenforceable.” 3. The senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in Clause (iii) has been redressed by notification dated 30th July, 2008, published in Bihar Gazette on 31st July, 2008. This is not controverted by the Additional Advocate General – III. As regards the afore-referred relief to which the petitioner has become entitled pursuant to the notification dated 30th July, 2008, published in Bihar Gazette on 31st July, 2008, the Additional Advocate General submits that the excess payment of tax shall be adjusted against the future demand. We accept the statement of the Additional Advocate General- III. 4. With regard to prayer clauses (i) and (ii), the senior counsel submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file fresh writ petition concerning those reliefs. This is not objected to by the Additional Advocate General. We, accordingly, grant liberty to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition for the reliefs claimed in prayer clauses (i) and (ii). 5. The senior counsel for the petitioner does not press the - 3 - prayer clause (iv) and, accordingly, the said prayer is rejected. 6. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/