JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. By this writ petition, eight petitioners have challenged the validity of the Tripura Sales Tax (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1994 by which the State Legislature imposed five per cent sales tax on zarda. The petitioners, who are dealers of zarda and pan masala, were aggrieved by the said amendment on the ground that for the first time in Tripura, the sales tax was imposed on zarda though admittedly it was a Union subject and the subject-matter of legislation was a field occupied by the Central enactment. The petitioners contend that the State Legislature was not competent to enact on entry 54 of the State List relating to imposition of tax on zarda in view of entry 92A of List I of the Seventh Schedule as well as Article 286(3) of the Constitution. The petitioners have sought relief by way of a declaration that the said amendment was unconstitutional and ultra vires of Articles 301, 304(b), 286(3), 245, 246, 265, 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4, being the State of Tripura and the Commissioner of Taxes, Tripura, have contested the claim by filing counter-affidavit. None has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, the Union of India and the Chairman, Central Board of Excise, respectively. The answering respondents contended that entry 54 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution empowers the State Legislature to make a law imposing sales tax on any item including zarda having been clothed by the enabling powers available in Clause (3) of Article 246 of the Constitution. The other stand taken by the respondents is that the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 authorises the State Legislature to impose tax on declared goods up to ceiling of four per cent and as such the State Legislature was competent to impose tax on zarda up to four per cent. It is admitted by the respondents that State Government is barred from interfering with the tobacco industry, which has been taken under the control of the Union. But there is no restriction on imposition of sales tax on tobacco and such imposition in no way interferes with the tobacco industry, which is the exclusive domain of the Union of India. It is admitted by the respondents that State Government is barred from interfering with the tobacco industry, which has been taken under the control of the Union. But there is no restriction on imposition of sales tax on tobacco and such imposition in no way interferes with the tobacco industry, which is the exclusive domain of the Union of India. In para 18 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents conceded that the tax on zarda should have been four per cent instead of five per cent in view of the provision of the Central Act. 3. I have heard Mr. S.C. Saha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the State respondents. Having regard to the rival stand taken by the parties, this court is called upon to decide only the question whether the impugned State Act is invalid being ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution ? 4. The State Legislature derives its power to enact on the subject-matters enumerated in the State List from Article 246 of the Constitution, Clause (3) of which reads as under: 246(3). Subject to Clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule. The State List in entry 54 reads: 54. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92A of List I. Again, entry 92A of List I reads: 92A. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. 5. Article 286 imposes certain restrictions on the power of the State Legislature to make laws, which is quoted below: 286. Restrictions as to imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods-(1) No law of a State shall impose, or authorise the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place (a) Outside the State. (b) In the course of the import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India. 6. (b) In the course of the import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India. 6. There is no doubt that the impugned State Act by which zarda was brought into the tax net has not imposed a tax on the sale or purchase of goods which takes place outside the State or in the course of the import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the State. The petitioners themselves have made clear statement in the writ petition that they are dealers in Tripura and they obtain their supply from various manufacturers, most of whom have their principal place of business at Delhi. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, they have further stated that they sell the zarda to the ultimate consumers in Tripura through their outlets. It is thus clear that as the sale takes place within the State of Tripura, they come within the tax net for being liable to pay under the impugned enactment. The provision of Article 286 of the Constitution in no way comes to the rescue of the petitioners. 7. Mr. Saha, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the tobacco being covered by the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, the field of tobacco is occupied by the Union Legislature and, therefore, the State has no power to make any law. He gives emphasis on entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which empowers the Union to take into control any industry after declaring by law to be expedient in the public interest. He derived support to bolster his contention from the decision of this court in All Assam Zarda Merchants Association v. State of Assam, 1999 115 STC 92 (Civil Rule No. 2827 of 1993 passed on 4.6.1999). In that case, this court in the Principal Seat had an occasion to examine the validity of imposition of sales tax on zarda by the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. It was admitted by the State of Assam during argument that only for a period of 3 years 9 months, entry 8 in Schedule II of the said Act imposing sales tax on zarda was imposed, but thereafter, considering the distribution of additional excise duty by the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, the said entry was deleted. On this issue, my attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the State respondents to the proviso below the Second Schedule of the aforesaid Act, which shows the distribution of the proceeds collected under that Act. The proviso reads as follows: Provided that if during that financial year there is levied and collected in any State a tax on the sale or purchase [the goods described in column (3) of the First Schedule] or one or more of them by or under any law of that State, no sums shall be payable to that State under this paragraph in respect of that financial year, unless the Central Government by special order otherwise directs. 8. The aforesaid provision does not even by implication debar the State from making any law imposing sales tax on tobacco. The only condition which has been made in that proviso is that if any law is made imposing sales tax on tobacco, the State making such law shall not get the percentage of the proceeds of additional duties levied under the Central Act. The choice thus remains with the State either to impose tax on tobacco by State legislation or to get the percentage of proceeds of additional duties levied under the aforesaid Central Act. In the decision cited above, the imposition of sales tax by the State law of Assam was set aside only on the admission of the State that it was receiving the percentage of share of the additional duties under the Central Act. No such submission has been made on behalf of the State of Tripura that they are receiving both the share under the Central Act as well as the sales tax under the State Act. Therefore, the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not in any way support his contention that the imposition of the sales tax by the State law was ultra vires of the Constitution. It is, however, made clear that the State cannot derive both the benefits, namely the sales tax under the State Act and the share of additional excise duty under the aforesaid Central Act. 9. It is, however, made clear that the State cannot derive both the benefits, namely the sales tax under the State Act and the share of additional excise duty under the aforesaid Central Act. 9. As regards the power of the State to enact under entry 54, which is subject to entry 92A of the Union List, a combined reading of the two entries would show that entry 92A empowers the Union Legislature to make laws imposing taxes on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Admittedly, the transaction conducted by the petitioners takes place within the State and consequently, comes within the purview of entry 54 of the State List, which empowers the State Legislature to impose tax on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers. I have carefully gone through the other provisions of the Constitution as referred to in para 27 of the writ petition, which have no relevance for disposal of the present issue. Article 301 relates to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, Article 304 deals with restrictions on trade, commerce and inter-course among States, Article 286(3) imposes a restriction on the State law imposing a tax on sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, Article 245 demarcates the extent of laws to be made by Parliament as well as by the State Legislature, Article246 provides the enabling powers to the Parliament and the State Legislatures to make laws, Article265 provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law, Article 14 is the equality clause and Article 19(1)(g) gives right to all citizens to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The petitioners cannot claim to be immune from the liability to pay tax under the impugned State enactment and nowhere in the writ petition have they explained how the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution have any bearing on the question of constitutional validity of the impugned legislation. 10. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any reason to declare the impugned enactment as invalid and ultra vires of any provision of the Constitution. 10. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any reason to declare the impugned enactment as invalid and ultra vires of any provision of the Constitution. However, it is noticed that the respondents in their joint counter-affidavit have conceded that the State Legislature is competent to enact a law imposing sales tax on zarda only to the extent of four per cent admitting thereby that the impugned enactment to the extent it imposes five per cent tax on zarda was not valid. The reason shown for such admission is the provision of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which authorises the State Legislature to impose tax on declared goods up to four per cent. No notification has been enclosed to show that tobacco was a declared goods under the Central legislation. However, if that be the position, the power of the State Legislature to make a law under entry 54 of the State List notwithstanding, the respondents should take necessary steps to amend the impugned State law in line with the aforesaid statement in the counter-affidavit, if so advised. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own cost.