Legislative competence and validating laws fail when the taxing entry is omitted and no power remains to revive the statute.

A validating amendment enacted while an appeal was pending could not revive an entry tax law already declared unconstitutional, because a stay of operation does not erase the judgment or restore legislative power. The interim appellate arrangement permitting assessment and restraining refund did not authorise re-enactment or retrospective validation. After omission of Entry 52 from List II by the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, the State had no surviving legislative competence to enact sections 5 and 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Section 19 was treated as transitional only and not a fresh source of power. The validating and retrospective provisions were therefore unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the West Bengal Legislature could amend the West Bengal Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2012 during the pendency of the appeal against the judgment striking it down. (ii) Whether, after deletion of Entry 52 from List II by the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, and in view of section 19 thereof, the State had legislative competence to enact sections 5 and 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 validating and retrospectively amending the Entry Tax law.

Issue (i): Whether the West Bengal Legislature could amend the West Bengal Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2012 during the pendency of the appeal against the judgment striking it down.

Analysis: A stay of operation of a judgment does not erase the judgment itself or revive a law declared void. The interim order of the appellate court permitting assessment proceedings and preventing refund did not amount to a revival of the Entry Tax Act or confer authority on the Legislature to re-enact or validate it by amendment. The pendency of the appeal and the interim arrangement could not be treated as a license to introduce a retrospective validating law against a statute already declared unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The amendment made during the pendency of the appeal was not saved by the interim order and was premature.

Issue (ii): Whether, after deletion of Entry 52 from List II by the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, and in view of section 19 thereof, the State had legislative competence to enact sections 5 and 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 validating and retrospectively amending the Entry Tax law.

Analysis: Entry 52, which was the source of legislative power for entry tax, stood omitted from List II. Once that field was deleted, the State Legislature had no surviving plenary power to legislate on entry tax. Section 19 of the constitutional amendment was held to be a transitional provision for laws still in force and inconsistent with the amended Constitution, but it did not confer a fresh source of power to revive a law whose legislative field had itself been removed. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with substituted or partially altered entries and held that an omitted entry stands on a different footing. The validating provisions in sections 5 and 6 therefore exceeded legislative competence.

Conclusion: Sections 5 and 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 are unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void for want of legislative competence.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validating and retrospective amendments succeeded, and the impugned provisions could not sustain constitutional scrutiny for absence of legislative authority after omission of the relevant taxing entry.

---