Entry tax applies when supply through a warehouse causes goods to enter the local area; special collection provision did not displace general assessment machinery.

Supply through a warehouse arrangement can still amount to causing entry of goods into a local area where the dealer's transaction is the immediate commercial cause of that entry; the presence of intermediary storage and separate transactional steps does not break the causal link required by the charging provision, and entry tax was therefore attracted. A special provision for collection of entry tax on beer and Indian made foreign liquor was treated as enabling and machinery-based, so the absence of a notification under that provision did not prevent assessment and collection under the general machinery section. The tax levy was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants caused the entry of beer and Indian made foreign liquor into the local area so as to attract entry tax under Section 3(1)(a) of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976. (ii) Whether the absence of a notification under Section 3B of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 barred assessment and collection of entry tax.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants caused the entry of beer and Indian made foreign liquor into the local area so as to attract entry tax under Section 3(1)(a) of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976.

Analysis: The transaction structure showed that the manufacturers supplied goods pursuant to the warehouse system, with retailer demand routed through the warehouse, storage in departmental godowns, and payment ultimately flowing through the warehouse mechanism to the manufacturers. On those facts, the relationship between the manufacturers and the warehouse was treated as involving two independent transactions, but that did not break the causal connection required by the charging provision. Section 2(3) expands "has effected entry of goods" to include "has caused to be effected entry of goods", and the expression "entry tax" under Section 2(1)(b) is tied to entry into a local area for consumption, use or sale. The manufacturers, by supplying through the warehouse arrangement, occasioned the entry of the goods into the local area.

Conclusion: The appellants did cause the entry of goods and were liable to entry tax; this issue is decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a notification under Section 3B of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976 barred assessment and collection of entry tax.

Analysis: Section 3B was treated as an enabling and machinery provision for special collection of entry tax on foreign liquor and beer. In the absence of any notification under that provision, there was no inconsistency preventing the ordinary assessment and collection mechanism under Section 14 from operating. The non obstante clause in Section 3B was held to override only a contrary provision, and no such contrary provision displaced the general machinery under Section 14.

Conclusion: The absence of a notification under Section 3B did not bar levy, assessment, or collection under Section 14; this issue is decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The entry tax levy on the appellants was sustained and the challenge to the demand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer's supply arrangement is the immediate cause of entry of goods into the local area, liability under the charging provision is attracted even if an intermediary warehouse participates in the transaction, and a special collection provision that is merely enabling does not displace the general assessment machinery in the absence of a contrary notification.

---