In Writ Petition No. 541 of 2010-BOM HC- Bombay High Court validates Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000
Justice M.S. Sonak & Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes [24-04-2023]

Read Order: M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd. and Ors v. State of Goa and Ors

LE Correspondent

Mumbai, May 4, 2023: The Bombay High Court at Goa has upheld the validity of Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000.

The petitioner, Bharti Telemedia Ltd. (BTL), had challenged the constitutional validity of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 (impugned Act) for want of legislative competence and for contravening Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the same purports to relate to Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India but, in pith and substance, relates to entries in List I and consequently, beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature.

The Bombay High Court at Goa followed the reasoning given by the Constitution Bench in Jindal Stainless Ltd. And Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors [LQ/SC/2016/1434], wherein it was held that the States are well within their right to design their fiscal legislations to ensure that there is an equal tax burden on goods produced within the state and goods imported from other states.

The High Court further placed reliance on Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited, Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra [LQ/BomHC/2019/578], wherein the High Court observed, “Under Entry 52 of List II of Seventh Schedule appended to the Constitution, the State is empowered to levy and collect entry tax on the entry of the goods into local areas. Further, the imposition of tax on sale or purchase of goods is permissible under entry 54 of List II. Entry 52 and Entry 54 are two separate fields of legislations. Incidence of tax under these two entries is also independent. Merely because the rate of tax under both the taxing statutes is the same, it cannot be said that the State is levying VAT in the garb of Entry Tax. The State having taken a conscious decision to avoid discrimination has decided not to levy Entry tax in excess of VAT applicable on similar goods.”

Pursuant to above observations, petitions were dismissed and interim order, if any, were vacated.