JUDGMENT
1. The case is taken up for final hearing. Heard arguments by Mr. G. Chakraborty learned Senior Advocate for the applicant and Mr. M.C. Mukhopadhyay learned State Representative.
2. This is an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 and is a substitute for one under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1987 read with Article 323B of the Constitution. The subject-matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal, to which the jurisdiction of the High Court has been barred.
3. The grievance of the applicant is that the assessments for the periods from June 10, 1987 to August 30, 1987 and from August 31, 1987 to September 30, 1987, in respect of the applicant were made in accordance with Notification No. 1022 dated March 29, 1984, issued by the Government of West Bengal under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, prescribing sales tax at the rate of 15 per cent on sales on television sets imported from outside the State of West Bengal, whereas the rate of tax was prescribed at 4 per cent for sales of TV sets manufactured or produced inside the State of West Bengal. The assessments were made on December 31, 1991. Appeals were preferred before the Assistant Commissioner. By orders dated December 1, 1993 and August 25, 1993, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals upholding the assessments. The short case of the applicant is that levy of tax at such discriminatory rates is in contravention of Articles 301, 304(a), 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by respondents, saying that fixing of such different rates of tax for TV sets imported from outside and TV sets manufactured in West Bengal is valid. An affi-davit-in-reply was filed by the applicant.
5. Mr. G. Chakraborty learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned Notification No. 1022 dated March 29, 1984, which was operative from April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1989, prescribing the aforesaid discriminatory rate of tax is invalid and unconstitutional, being in contravention of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India. He has cited the decisions reported in [1988] 70 STC 52 (SC) (Weston Electroniks v. State of Gujarat), [1988] 70 STC 57 (SC) (Weston Electronics v. State of Maharashtra) and also a case reported in AIR 1983 SC 656 (Lakshman v. State of Madhya Pradesh). Mr. Chakraborty has also informed us that after March 31, 1989, the discrimination and difference in sales tax rates relating to imported TV sets vis-a-vis TV sets manufactured in West Bengal were abolished. Mr. M.C. Mukhopadhyay, learned State Representative, appearing for respondents submits that the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Weston Electroniks [1988] 70 STC 52 and [1988] 70 STC 57 should be followed.
6. In AIR 1983 SC 656 (Lakshman v. State of Madhya Pradesh) the Supreme Court held that levy of higher grazing rates for cattle belonging to persons of States other than Madhya Pradesh was unconstitutional, being in contravention of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. In [1988] 70 STC 52 (Weston Electroniks v. State of Gujarat, [1988] 70 STC 57 (Weston Electroniks v. State of Maharashtra) the Supreme Court also held that the notifications of the State Governments levying sales tax at a lesser rate for goods manufactured within the concerned States and at a higher rate for goods imported from outside the concerned States were unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 301, 303(1) and 304(a) of the Constitution. Accordingly, apart from the concession made by the learned State Representative appearing for the respondents, we are of the opinion that the impugned Notification No. 1022, which is wrongly described in the main application as Notification No. 1012, dated March 29, 1984, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 301, 303(1) and 304(a) of the Constitution of India and consequently the notification is also violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Therefore, assessments at the rate of 15 per cent sales tax on TV sets imported by the applicant from outside the State of West Bengal are invalid and unconstitutional.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed, the impugned Notification No. 1022 dated March 29, 1984, levying a higher rate of tax at the rate of 15 per cent on sales of TV sets imported from outside the State of West Bengal is quashed. The impugned two assessment orders dated December 30, 1991 for the periods from June 10, 1987 to August 30, 1987 and from August 31, 1987 to September 30, 1987, under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 in respect of the applicant and the corresponding appellate orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner on December 1, 1993 and August 25, 1993, respectively are quashed.
The main application is thus disposed of without any order for costs.