1995 (11) TMI 430 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994 affirmed under State Legislature's competence

VST Distribution, Storage and Leasing Co. Ltd. and Another Versus State of West Bengal and Others

VST Distribution, Storage and Leasing Co. Ltd. and Another Versus State of West Bengal and Others - [2000] 118 STC 515 (WBTT) Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competence2. Violation of Article 301 of the Constitution3. Nature of Luxury Tax as Sales Tax or Excise Duty4. Compliance with Article 304 of the Constitution5. Impact on Interstate Trade and Commerce6. Validity of the West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competence:The applicants challenged the legislative competence of the West Bengal State Legislature to enact the West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994, arguing that the field of legislation concerning the cigarette industry is fully occupied by the Parliament through the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, and the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The respondents contended that the Luxury Tax Act was validly enacted under Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which allows the State to impose taxes on luxuries. The judgment concluded that the Luxury Tax Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 62 of List II, and the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, enacted under Entry 52 of List I, does not denude the State Legislature of its competence to levy taxes under a taxing entry in List II.2. Violation of Article 301 of the Constitution:The applicants argued that the Luxury Tax Act violates Article 301 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout India. They contended that the luxury tax directly impedes the free flow of trade and commerce, particularly since manufactured tobacco is a declared good. The respondents countered that the tax is levied on the stock of luxuries held within the State and does not impede the free flow of trade and commerce. The judgment held that the Luxury Tax Act does not contravene Article 301, as it does not impose a direct and immediate impediment to the free flow of trade and commerce.3. Nature of Luxury Tax as Sales Tax or Excise Duty:The applicants contended that the luxury tax is, in pith and substance, a sales tax or an excise duty, which is beyond the legislative competence of the State. They argued that the tax is linked to the manufacture and sale of goods, making it a disguised excise duty or sales tax. The respondents argued that the tax is levied on the stock of luxuries held within the State, not on the manufacture or sale of goods. The judgment concluded that the luxury tax is neither an excise duty nor a sales tax, as it is levied on the stocking of luxury items within the State, which is subsequent to and distinct from manufacture or importation.4. Compliance with Article 304 of the Constitution:The applicants argued that the Luxury Tax Act violates Article 304(b) of the Constitution, as it imposes restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce without obtaining the previous sanction of the President. The respondents contended that there is no contravention of Article 301, and the tax is protected under Article 304(a) as it does not discriminate between imported goods and locally manufactured goods. The judgment held that the Luxury Tax Act does not violate Article 301, and since the applicants did not challenge the tax on the ground of violation of Article 304(a) during the arguments, there is no need to enter into the question of compliance with Article 304(b).5. Impact on Interstate Trade and Commerce:The applicants argued that the luxury tax is a tax on inter-State sales or purchases or consignments of goods, which is beyond the legislative competence of the State. The respondents contended that the tax is levied on the stock of luxuries held within the State and does not have any nexus with inter-State transactions. The judgment concluded that the luxury tax is not linked to any kind of sale or purchase, nor to consignment of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Therefore, entries 92A and 92B of List I, which are exclusive fields of legislation by Parliament, have nothing to do with the luxury tax.6. Validity of the West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994:The judgment upheld the validity of the West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994, concluding that the Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 62 of List II, does not contravene Article 301 of the Constitution, and is not a disguised sales tax or excise duty. The Act is valid and enforceable, and the application challenging its validity is dismissed. The interim order dated April 28, 1995, stands vacated.Dissenting Judgment:The dissenting member, P.R. Balasubramanian, held that the West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994, imposes a direct and immediate restriction on the freedom of trade of an importer-stockist in violation of Article 301. Since the Act has not complied with the provisions of Article 304(b) or Article 255, it is declared void.