IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15473 of 2005 UNION OF INDIA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.3105 of 2002 THE UNION OF INDIA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.4590 of 2004 THE UNION OF INDIA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.9078 of 2004 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.13047 of 2003 THE UNION OF INDIA(RAILWAY) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.12522 of 2002 THE UNION OF INDIA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.6899 of 2002 UNION OF INDIA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.12157 of 2003 VST DISTRIBUTION STORAGE & LEASING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. D. K. Sinha , Senior Advocate Mr.Parasuram Singh, Junior Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General Mr. Purendra Singh (in all the cases) -------- - 2 - P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated the 28st August, 2008. This group of eight writ petitions raises identical controversy, and, therefore, all these matters are being taken up together for hearing. We also dispose of the same by the common order. 2. It is not disputed by the Advocate General that if the judgment passed by this court in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, 2007 (1) PLJR 502, holds the field, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993, as amended by Amending Acts 10 of 2001 and 09 of 2004, cannot stand. 3. In view of this admitted position, we are satisfied that the diverse issues raised by the petitioners with regard to non- applicability of the said Act to them need not be gone into by us. As to whether, the petitioners are ‘dealer’ within the meaning of the afore- referred Act, and also whether levy of entry tax amounts to tax on the property of the Central Government may be left open to be raised and considered as and when occasion arises. Keeping these issues open to be determined in appropriate proceedings at a later stage, if necessary. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited & anr (supra) held in paragraph 69 of - 3 - the report thus: “69. In light of the above discussions, I may summarize the conclusion as follows: (i) The levy under the parent Act of 1993, before its amendments, was not compensatory in character and was, therefore, violative of Article 301 of the Constitution. (ii) The parent Act of 1993, before its amendments, was nevertheless saved by virtue of Article 304 (b) of the Constitution and the decision in Bihar Chamber of Commerce to that extent remains subsisting till date. (iii) The amendments introduced in the Act by amending Acts 10 of 2001 and 9 of 2004 were bad because the former made the Act violative of Article 304 (a) of the Constitution and further because both the amendments were made without the previous sanction of the President. (iv) The introduction of imported goods within the definition of `Entry of Goods’ was bad for being retrospective as also for want of the Presidential sanction/assent. (v) After the 2006 Amendment the levy under the Act acquired the nature of a compensatory tax and the Act in its present form is a valid piece of legislation. 5. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned notices in this group of writ petitions are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Sunil