Entry tax charging provision upheld where the statute clearly specifies taxable event, liable dealer, and rate.

Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act was treated as the complete charging provision: the taxable event is entry of specified goods into a local area in the course of business, the dealer is the person liable, and the rate is supplied by the Schedule. The Court held that the reference to dealers liable under the VAT Act identifies the person from whom tax is recovered and does not restrict the levy. It further held that section 3B is only a special collection mechanism, so the absence of a notification under that provision does not defeat the charge or exclude recovery through the general machinery under section 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act is the charging provision and whether the petitioners, as dealers causing entry of beer and Indian-made foreign liquor into the local area, are liable to entry tax; (ii) whether the absence of a notification under section 3B prevents recovery of entry tax and excludes the general machinery under section 14.

Issue (i): whether section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act is the charging provision and whether the petitioners, as dealers causing entry of beer and Indian-made foreign liquor into the local area, are liable to entry tax.

Analysis: Section 3(1) was held to contain the complete charging scheme for entry tax: the taxable event is the entry of specified goods into a local area in the course of business, the person liable is the dealer, and the rate is found in the Schedule. The expression requiring payment by a dealer liable to tax under the VAT Act was treated as identifying the person from whom the tax is to be realised, not as a condition limiting the levy itself. The Court applied the principle that a taxing statute must clearly disclose the subject, the person liable, and the rate, and held that those elements were present in section 3 read with the Schedule.

Conclusion: Section 3 is the charging provision and the petitioners are liable to entry tax.

Issue (ii): whether the absence of a notification under section 3B prevents recovery of entry tax and excludes the general machinery under section 14.

Analysis: Section 3B was treated as a special machinery provision enabling the Government to prescribe a special manner, authority, and conditions for collection of entry tax on foreign liquor and beer. Its non obstante clause was read as overriding only inconsistent provisions to the extent a special notification is issued. In the absence of such notification, the general machinery under section 14 continues to operate, and the lack of a special notification does not nullify the levy or make recovery impossible. The Court rejected the argument that absence of a special collection mechanism defeats the charge itself.

Conclusion: Absence of a notification under section 3B does not bar recovery under section 14.

Final Conclusion: The levy of entry tax on the petitioners was upheld, and the writ petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute clearly provides the taxable event, the person liable, and the rate, the charge is valid; a special collection provision that is not brought into operation does not extinguish the levy if the statute's general machinery can still be applied.

---