JINDAL STAINLESS LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 18-12-2008, when some of the cases in the present batch came for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us, Kapadia, J., was a party, the Division Bench of this Court found that some of the High Courts before which the State entry tax stood challenged had taken the view that clause (a) and clause (b) of Article 304 of the Constitution of India are independent of each other and that if the impugned law stood saved under Article 304(a) then it need not be tested with reference to clause (b) for determining its validity.

(2.) Accordingly, on 18-12-2008, Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. State ofM.R, 2009 7 SCC 339 the Division Bench of this Court referred to the Constitution Bench 10 questions, the most important of which being whether the State enactments relating to levy of entry tax have to be tested with reference to both Article 304(a) and Article 304(b) of the Constitution and whether Article 304(a) is conjunctive with or separate from Article 304(b) Consequently, the matter stood referred to the Constitution Bench of this Court.

(3.) Accordingly, on 16-3-2010, the entire batch of cases came for hearing before the Constitution Bench in which the lead matter is Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana. When the hearing commenced before the Constitution Bench, we found that the assessees (the original petitioners in the High Courts) are heavily relying upon the tests propounded by a five Judge Bench of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, 1961 AIR(SC) 232 which tests subject to the clarification, stood reiterated in the subsequent judgment delivered by a larger Bench of this Court in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan., 1962 AIR(SC) 1406