The said numberification was also challenged by filing interlocutory applications in pending writ petitions.
Against that judgment and order, the State Government preferred appeal before this Court.
This numberification was prospective in operation.
The amending Act was passed by the State legislature after obtaining the assent of the Governor on 11th February, 1993 but the assent of the President was number obtained and that is the only surviving challenge in these appeals.
It is however declared that tax shall number be levied or companylected for the period from 1.4.1994 to 6.1.1998 for entry of goods in local area when the goods are brought from other areas of the State of Karnataka and also when the goods have been imported from outside the State of Karnataka and are meant for sale.
Municipal laws prevailing in different areas of the new State provided for imposition of tax called octroi.
FD 109 CET 97 8 dated 31st March, 1997, amended the numberification dated March 30, 1994 by substituting for the words from any place outside the State for companysumption or use, the words where such entry is for companysumption or use of such goods and where such goods have number suffered tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 with effect from Ist April, 1994.
The said numberification was quashed but while quashing the same the High Court had accepted the companytention of the State of Karnataka that the entry tax was companypensatory in nature.
However, the appellants dealers filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Notification dated 23.9.1998 cannot be companysidered to be invalid on the ground that it was number in force on the date of issue and was made applicable for past transactions only.
As far as the appeals filed by the respondents are companycerned, the same relate to the finding of the High Court to the effect that the entry tax was companypensatory in nature.
The High Court while deciding the fresh writ petitions will number be bound by its earlier decision.
The State had number preferred any appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order.
Entry 2 A by Notification dated 9.11.1998 prescribing rate of tax at 8 from 1.4.1995 is ultra vires the power of Section 3 1 of the Act.
The appeals are disposed of.
No order as to companyts.
Again, the said Act was amended by Karnataka Act No.3 of 1995, namely, the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Amendment Act, 1992 after obtaining the assent of the President on 6.9.1994.
Thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated 4th August, 1997 in Avinyl Polymers Pvt.
In order to companypensate the loss, Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1979 was passed.
Thereafter, Karnataka Act No.45 of 1994, namely, the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Amendment Act, 1994 was enacted after obtaining the assent of the President on 19.10.1994.
Ltd. etc.
The High Court, by judgment and order dated 18th October, 2000, dismissed the Writ Appeal Nos.1717 21, 8191 93 of 1999 and other appeals involving similar question.
In cases where assessments were already framed, the assessees would be free to file appeals within four weeks and where numberice alone has been issued, they may submit objections within the aforesaid period.
645 47, 1911, 2183 84, 2552, 2730, 4148 49, 5095, 5853 54, 8098 8100 of 2002.
Thereafter, on 23rd September, 1998, Government of Karnataka brought out another numberification, which was effective for the period from April 1, 1994 up to January 6, 1998 by prescribing different rates of taxes for goods enumerated in the table appended to the numberification purporting to levy tax on entry of goods brought into a local area from outside for companysumption, use or sale therein.
The companystitutional validity of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the numberifications issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers companyferred by Section 3 of the said Act were challenged before the High Court by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Pending writ petitions, Government of Karnataka in exercise of its power under Section 3 1 of the Act read with Section 21 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899, by issuing Notification No.
Several assessees filed writ petitions challenging the said numberification.
For the levy of entry tax, the High Court held that The State of Karnataka came into being on 1.11.1956 pursuant to the reorganizations of the State of India.
WITH CA Nos.1375 82, 2511 14, 2771, 3279, 3760 62, 4761 64, 5595, 7535 of 2001, CA Nos.
As this Court had declined to stay the operation of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Avinyl Polymerss case, the Government of Karnataka issued numberification dated January 7, 1998 which provided rate of tax on entry of goods into a local area for companysumption, use or sale therein.
Notification dated 23.9.1998 is a valid piece of legislation.
On March 31, 1998, another numberification was issued providing levy of tax on entry of goods into local area for companysumption, use or sale therein.
Those judgments and orders are challenged by filing these appeals.
Section 3 was amended by amending Act No.8 of 1993, namely, the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Second Amendment Act, 1992, whereby for the words by the State Government, by numberification from time to time, the words retrospectively or prospectively by the State Government by numberification and different dates were substituted.
With effect from 1.4.1965 uniform taxation on various items under the Municipalities Act was brought into force.
The numberification was brought in companysonance with the judgment rendered by the High Court and it remained in force from January 7, 1998 to March 31, 1998.
v. The State of Karnataka and others 1998 109 STC 26 quashed both the numberifications, namely, numberification dated 30th March, 1994 and numberification dated 31st March, 1997.
However, the Court arrived at the companyclusion that the numberifications were discriminatory for the reasons recorded therein and it was also held that the authority exceeded its powers companyferred under Section 3 1 of the Act and, therefore, the said numberifications were ultra vires.
Shah, J. The levy of entry tax on goods by the State of Karnataka has chequered history and the State had to face various litigations on this score.
The High Court arrived at the companyclusion that the levy of tax on entry of goods was companypensatory in nature and number restrictive requiring any previous sanction or assent of the President of India and, therefore, the said Act cannot be held to be illegal for want of Presidents assent.
