The Bombay High Court in the case M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Versus State of Goa observed and has upheld the validity of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000. The bench comprising of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes in the case observed and has denied the decision of the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Limited and another vs. State of Haryana and ors., wherein the court upheld the constitutional validity of entry taxes imposed by states on goods coming in from other states.
In the present case, the petitioner moved a plea wherein challenging the constitutional validity of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000, for want of legislative competence and in any such case for contravening Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 265, Article 301, and Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner seeks the consequential relief of a refund of entry tax recovered by the state from the petitioners.
Therefore, the Goa Legislative Assembly enacted the Entry of Goods Act, of 200o after the bill was being introduced with previous sanction of the President. Thus, the Act provided September 1, 2000, as the appointed date on which the said Act would come into force.
The petitioner, Bharti Telemedia Ltd., BTL being in the business of providing Direct Home DTH services in various states in India, which include the State of Goa, under a license issued in terms of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Similarly, the petitioner, Bharti Airtel Ltd., BAL being in the business of providing cellular telecommunication services in various states in India, including the State of Goa, also under a similar license under the Indian Telegraph Act, of 1885. The petitioner in the plea urged that the entry tax be related to the levy of import duties under Entry 41, read with Entry 83 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Therefore, the state legislature has no legislative competence in order to enact the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, of 2000. Thus, the said Act and the levy of the tax violate Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 265, and Article 301 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition and has vacated the interim order. Further, the court discharged the rule in both petitions.
The counsel, Shivan Desai appeared for the Petitioner
The Counsel, Sapna Mordekar represented the Respondent
