General exemption under the entry tax law shields non-dealers importing motor vehicles for personal use; constitutional challenge failed.

A general exemption in section 28 was held to apply to the entry-tax scheme in Chapter II-A because the statute did not clearly exclude it, and tax liability could not be created by supplying a supposed casus omissus; non-dealers bringing motor vehicles into a local area for their own use were therefore not liable to entry tax. The challenge to section 4-E on repugnancy failed because the amending Act had presidential assent under article 254(2), and the article 304(a) discrimination objection also failed since the exemption notification maintained parity between locally manufactured and imported motor vehicles in the hands of dealers. The remaining question whether a petitioner was in fact a dealer was left to the statutory authorities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether persons who are not dealers in goods are liable to entry tax on motor vehicles brought into a local area for their own use under section 4-B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, notwithstanding section 28 of the Act; (ii) Whether section 4-E of the Act and the differential treatment of imported motor vehicles were unconstitutional in view of article 254(2) and article 304(a) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether persons who are not dealers in goods are liable to entry tax on motor vehicles brought into a local area for their own use under section 4-B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, notwithstanding section 28 of the Act.

Analysis: The charging provision in Chapter II-A was read with the scheme of the Act, the definition of "dealer" in section 2(4), the wide definition of "business" in section 2(2-b), and the general exemption in section 28. The expression "dealer in goods" in section 28 was treated as coextensive with the statutory meaning of "dealer" under the Act. The Court held that the Legislature had not left any casus omissus and that a subject cannot be taxed unless the statute clearly so provides. Section 28, being a general exemption, applied to the provisions in Chapter II-A as well.

Conclusion: Persons who are not dealers in goods are not liable to pay entry tax on motor vehicles brought by them for their own use, and they are entitled to the benefit of section 28 of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether section 4-E of the Act and the differential treatment of imported motor vehicles were unconstitutional in view of article 254(2) and article 304(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge based on repugnancy was rejected because the amending Act had received the requisite presidential assent under article 254(2). The Court also treated the legislation as a permissible composite enactment referable to more than one legislative entry. The discrimination challenge under article 304(a) was rejected in view of the exemption notification, which ensured parity in the incidence of tax on motor vehicles manufactured within the State and those brought from outside by dealers.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenges to section 4-E and to the levy under article 304(a) were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that non-dealers importing motor vehicles for personal use were held exempt from entry tax, while the factual question whether a particular petitioner was a dealer was left to the statutory authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A general statutory exemption expressed in unambiguous terms applies to later special charging provisions within the same Act unless the Legislature has clearly excluded its operation, and tax cannot be imposed by supplying a supposed omission in the statute.

---