Entry tax parity test under Article 304(a) upheld; non-discriminatory levy did not require presidential sanction.

A State entry tax scheme was examined for discrimination under Article 304(a) of the Constitution, and the levy was upheld because its adjustment mechanism and exemptions were designed to place imported goods on parity with similar locally produced goods in terms of ultimate tax burden. The analysis focused on the actual incidence and effect of the tax, not mere form, and concluded that the levy was not discriminatory. On that basis, Article 304(b) and prior presidential sanction were held inapplicable, because the additional constitutional requirements arise only where a discriminatory restriction is sought to be justified under that clause. The legislation was therefore treated as constitutionally valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the levy of entry tax under the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods for Local Areas Act, 2001 was discriminatory and violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether, even if the levy was otherwise valid, compliance with Article 304(b) and previous sanction of the President were required.

Issue (i): whether the levy of entry tax under the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods for Local Areas Act, 2001 was discriminatory and violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The levy was examined in the light of the object of the Act, the schedule of specified goods, and the reduction mechanism in Section 4, which adjusted the entry tax by the sales tax or central sales tax already paid outside the State. The Court held that the effective burden on imported goods was intended to be brought at par with the burden on similar goods manufactured or produced within the State. The relevant scheme also included an exemption for specified motor vehicles under Section 12, reinforcing the non-discriminatory design of the statute. The Court further held that discrimination under Article 304(a) must be assessed by comparing the ultimate incidence and effect of the tax on imported and locally produced goods.

Conclusion: The levy was held not to be discriminatory and not violative of Article 304(a); the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether, even if the levy was otherwise valid, compliance with Article 304(b) and previous sanction of the President were required.

Analysis: The Court construed Articles 304(a) and 304(b) as operating separately. It held that where a tax is found to be non-discriminatory under Article 304(a), the requirements of Article 304(b) do not arise. Previous presidential sanction is necessary only where the State law imposes discriminatory restrictions but seeks justification under Article 304(b) as a reasonable restriction in public interest.

Conclusion: Compliance with Article 304(b) and prior presidential sanction were held unnecessary in the present case.

Final Conclusion: The impugned entry tax legislation was upheld as constitutionally valid, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A State entry tax levy will not offend Article 304(a) when its scheme of adjustment and reduction places imported goods on parity with similar local goods in terms of ultimate tax burden; Article 304(b) is not attracted where the levy is non-discriminatory.

---