Writ Appeal success: Adverse remarks expunged, judicial restraint emphasized. Entry tax constitutionality upheld.

The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the adverse remarks made by the Single Judge were expunged. The court emphasized judicial restraint and propriety, highlighting the importance of remarks being necessary, evidence-based, and in accordance with principles of natural justice. The appellant's payment of entry tax was noted, and the court referenced various judgments on the constitutionality of entry tax. The decision underscored the evolving legal landscape and upheld the state's right to levy entry tax on imported goods.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Expunging of objectionable remarks.
2. Payment and constitutionality of entry tax.
3. Judicial restraint and propriety in making adverse remarks.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Expunging of Objectionable Remarks:
The appellant sought to expunge certain adverse remarks made by the learned Single Judge in the order of the Writ Court in W.P.No.18385 of 2012, dated 08.07.2021. The appellant argued that these remarks were unnecessary for the disposal of the writ petition, made in breach of principles of natural justice, and could affect his future career. The appellant had already paid the entry tax demanded. The court noted that the adverse remarks were unwarranted given the legal uncertainty surrounding entry tax and the divergent views expressed by various High Courts and the Supreme Court.

2. Payment and Constitutionality of Entry Tax:
The appellant was required by transport authorities to pay entry tax before registering an imported car, which led to the filing of a Writ of Mandamus. The court delved into the history of litigation regarding entry tax, highlighting key judgments, including the Constitutional Bench decision in Jindal Stainless Limited and Another Vs. State of Haryana (2017) 12 SCC 1. This decision resolved the issue of whether entry tax was compensatory in nature and outside the purview of Part XIII of the Constitution. The court referenced multiple cases and judgments to illustrate the evolving legal landscape and the eventual resolution by the Supreme Court, which upheld the state's right to levy entry tax on imported goods.

3. Judicial Restraint and Propriety in Making Adverse Remarks:
The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and propriety, citing several Supreme Court judgments. It noted that adverse remarks should only be made if necessary for the decision of the case and should be based on evidence, with the affected party given an opportunity to defend themselves. The court referenced the principles laid down in Testa Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 10 SCC 88 and Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka Vs. State of Assam (1996) 6 SCC 234, which stress the need for judicial pronouncements to be sober, moderate, and reserved. The court found that the disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge were unwarranted, irrelevant, and made without giving the appellant an opportunity to defend himself.

Conclusion:
The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 of the impugned order were expunged. The court reiterated the importance of judicial restraint and the need for remarks to be necessary, evidence-based, and made with due regard to the principles of natural justice. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

---