Jharkhand High Court
Jindadl Steel And Power Limite vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 22 September, 2011
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Chief Justice, P.P.Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P (T) No. 5000 OF 2011
Imperial Fastners Private Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5450 OF 2011
Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. . Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5278 OF 2011
Electosteel Steels Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5250 OF 2011
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5304 OF 2011
M/s.Reliance Communications Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5305 OF 2011
M/s. Reliance Communications Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5318 OF 2011
M/s. Reliance Web Store Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5578 OF 2011
Monte Carlo Construction Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5332 OF 2011
M/s.Reliance Infratel Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5312 OF 2011
M/s.Reliane BIG TV Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5315 OF 2011
M/s. Macronet Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5341 OF 2011
M/s. Macronet Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
With
W.P (T) No. 5311 OF 2011
M/s. Reliance Telecom Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
-------
CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
For the Appellant/Petitioner Mr.Sumeet Gadodia
Mr.B.Podder, Sr.Advocate
Mr.Indrajit Sinha
Mr.Piyush Podder
For the Respondents M/s.A.K.Sinha,A.G,.Rajiv Ranjan,AAG
Ajit Kumar, AAG
V.Kumar, S.Rani, Jcs to AAG
---------
Order No.07 Dated 22nd,September, 2011
Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioners have challenged the provision of Section 3 of the Jharkhand Entry Tax Act on Consumption or Use of Goods Act, 2011 on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tata Steel Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in [2008] 17 VST 209 (Jharkh) has declared exactly the identical provision made by Section 11 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as ultra vires to the Constitution after holding that prior sanction of the President as required under the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India has not been obtained and after observing that maintaining of roads and providing bridges is not compensatory in nature so as to constitute special advantage to trade, commerce and intercourse and after detailed discussion on the issue, the Division Bench has quashed the said provision.
Against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, a SLP has been preferred by the State, but operation of the aforesaid judgment has not been stayed. Now the State has enacted Act of 2011, which is nothing but verbatim rewriting of earlier law, which has been quashed. Therefore, the respondent State be restrained from recovering any tax from the writ petitioners under the Act of 2011.
Learned A.A.G vehemently submitted that in earlier round of litigation, it is true that the said provision of law has been struck down but SLP is pending. It is also submitted that the matter is, thus, sub-judice and cannot be said to have attained finality. It is further submitted that in earlier litigation, since the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify levy of the tax by showing that the amount collected is, in fact, utilized for the purpose for which it was collected, whereas presently the State has created funds.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similar provision for creation of fund was also in the earlier provision of law.
However, the aforesaid matter requires consideration and once the similar provision has since been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the State has come up with a new Act during the pendency of this litigation before Supreme Court and prima facie, the new provision appears to be same with admitted fact that this time also assent has not been obtained under Article 304(b) and further looking to the reasons given in the earlier orders, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent State be restrained from recovering any amount of tax from the writ petitioners under the Act of 2011. However, the writ petitioners shall furnish security for the amount to the State from time to time for payment of tax and interest, in case they fail to succeed in these petitions. The security be submitted within a period of three weeks from today.
List these cases for final hearing on 16th November, 2011, as the counsel for the petitioners have, for valid reasons, difficulty before that day in arguing the matters, at their request, put up these cases on 12th December, 2011.
(Prakash Tatia.,C.J.) (P.P.Bhatt, J.) dey