JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Since common question of fact and law are involved in all these petitions, hence we proceed to decide the same by present common judgment, with the consent of parties counsels. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948 (in short hereinafter referred as Act) now replaced by Value Added Tax Act, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of impugned notification dated 13.9.2001, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. By the impugned notification, Government has amended its earlier notification dated 29.1.2001 and imposed tax in pursuance to power conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 3A of the Act at the point of sale to the extent of 20 per cent on yarn imported from outside India and 4 per cent on yarn of other kind. It has been submitted that imposition of tax on the yarn imported from outside the country is beyond the jurisdiction of State Government. 3. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act. It has been submitted that in pursuance to treaty between the Government of Nepal and the Government of India signed on 6.12.1991 as amended on 3.12.1996 it has been made obligatory for the Government of India to provide access to the Indian market free of customs duties and the quantitative restrictions for all articles manufactured in Nepal. Treaty has been made valid up to 5.12.2001 (Annexure-2). Petitioner has been given import licence by the Government of India called certificate of import/export (Annexure-3). It has been submitted that in pursuance to licence granted by the Government of India the petitioner imports Polyster Yarn from Nepal which is being sent by the consignor of Nepal to the consignee in the U.P. by road after due clearance from the custom frontier of India. 4. It has been further stated that petitioner has deposited excise duty required under law. According to notification dated 17.1.2000 followed by notification dated 29.1.2000 (Annexure-5) the yarn is taxable under the rules framed under U.P. Trade Tax Act, according to which manufacturer/importer shall be liable to pay tax @ 4 percent. It is stated that staple yarn is also included in the yarn in terms of notification dated 17.1.2000 as amended by notification dated 29.1.2000. It is stated that staple yarn is also included in the yarn in terms of notification dated 17.1.2000 as amended by notification dated 29.1.2000. The relevant portion from the notification dated 29.1.2000 is reproduced as under:- Serial Description of Point of tax Rate of tax Number goods percentage 1 2 3 4 50. Yarn of all kinds except those covered M or I 4 % by any other notification 5. By impugned notification dated 13.9.2001 earlier notification (supra) has been amended by virtue of which the Entry at Sl. No. 58 has been inserted which provides levy of tax at different rates on the yearn i.e. yarn imported from outside the country and the yarn imported from other sources like other States. The impugned notification dated 13.9.2001 is reproduced as under : NOTIFICATION ————————–—————————————————————————————————— No. KA.NI-2-2800/XI-9(124)/90-U.P. Act15-48 Order-41-2000 dated: Lucknow:: September 13, 2001 ————————–—————————————————————————————————— In exercise of the powers under clause (b) of sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act 1948(U.P. Act No. 15 of 1948) read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act 1904 (UP Act No. 1 of 1904) the Governor is pleased to make with effect from September 15, 2001. The following amendment in government notification No. K.A.NL-2-306XI-9(113)99-U.P. Act-1548-Order-(8)-2001 dated January 29, 2001 as amended from time to time:- Amendment In the List to the aforesaid notification- (a) for the entry at serial number 30, the following entry columnwise be substituted namely : —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— (b) after entries at serial number 57, the following entry shall columwise be inserted, namely, Serial Description of Point of tax Rate of tax Number goods percentage 1 2 3 4 58(i) Yarn of all kinds imported from Importer 20% outside India. (ii) Yarn of all kinds except those covered M or I 4% by any other notification and not included in clause (i) above. By Order, (T. George Joseph) Pramukh Sachiv 6. Shri Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that State of U.P. lacks jurisdiction to impose tax on the yarn imported from outside the country hence it is void ab initio. He submits that the impugned notification is violative of Article 286 (1)(b) read with Article 304 A of the Constitution of India. Shri Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that State of U.P. lacks jurisdiction to impose tax on the yarn imported from outside the country hence it is void ab initio. He submits that the impugned notification is violative of Article 286 (1)(b) read with Article 304 A of the Constitution of India. It is further added that in view of Section 3 and 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act (CST) also it is not permissible for State Government to issue impugned notification. Alternatively, it has been submitted that it is not open for the government to impose 20 per cent tax on the goods imported from outside India for sale in the State of U.P. at higher rate than the goods manufactured and imported from other State or manufactured in the State of U.P.. The imposition of 20% tax in any way not reasonable. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Shree Mahvir Oil Mills and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, 1997 UPTC 227. 7. It shall be appropriate to consider the relevant provisions contained in Article 286 and 304 (A) of the Constitution of India relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. For convenience Article 286 and Article 304 of the Constitution of India are reproduced as under:- 286. Restrictions as to imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods.— (1) No law of a State shall impose, or authorize the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase takes place— (a) outside the State; or (b) in the course of the import of the goods into, or export of the goods out of, the territory of India. [* * * ] [(2) Parliament may by law formulate principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in any of the ways mentioned in clause (1).] [(3) Any law of a State shall, in so for as it imposes, or authorises the imposition of,- (a) a tax on the sale or purchase of goods declared by Parliament by law to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce; or (b) a tax on the sale or purchase of goods, being a tax of the nature referred to in subclause (b), sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (29A) of article 366, be subject to such restrictions and conditions in regard to the system of levy, rates and other incidents of the tax as Parliament may by law specify.] 304. Restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States.— Notwithstanding anything in article 301 or article 303, the Legislature of a State may by law- (a) impose on goods imported from other States [or the Union territories] any tax to which similar goods manufactured or produced in that State are subject, so, however, as not to discriminate between goods so imported and goods so manufactured or produced; and (b) impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interests: Provided that no Bill or amendment for the purposes of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President.” 8. A plain reading of Article 304 reveals that under Clause (a) State has been conferred power to impose taxes on the goods imported from other States or the Union Territories similar to goods manufactured or produced in that State, so that there may not be any discrimination between the goods imported from other State and goods manufactured or produced in the State itself. Under clause (b) of Article 304 State has been conferred power to impose such restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State which may be required to secure public interest. 9. Under clause (b) of Article 304 State has been conferred power to impose such restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State which may be required to secure public interest. 9. Accordingly, Article 304 of the Constitution of India does not seem to applicable in the present case as it confers regulatory power on the State government with regard to goods imported from other States providing that the tax has not been higher than the goods manufactured produced in the respective State itself. Article 304 does not relate to goods imported from outside the country. Accordingly, reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Article 304 seems to be not sustainable. 10. Under Clause 1(a) of the Article 286 State may not impose taxes on the sale or purchase of goods where such sale or purchase took place outside the State. Clause (b) of Article 286(1) deals with situation where goods are imported into or exported outside the territory of India. Thus the purpose of Clause (b) of Article 286 seems to restrict the State power where sale and purchase of goods takes place outside country and goods are imported or exported into or outside territory of India. 11. While interpreting the provisions contained in Article 286 of the constitution of India, Clause (b) should not be read in isolation but it should be read alongwith Clause (1). In case we conjoin them, then it may deal with the situation where sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of the import of the goods into or exports of goods out of the territory of India. Article 286 also starts from the words, “restriction as to imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods for the purpose of import or export within or outside the territory of India”. In the present case, tax has been imposed providing therein that imported goods brought into the State of U.P., shall be liable to tax at the rate of 20%. Virtually, it is the entry fees over the foreign items brought into the State of U.P. It has got no relationship with either the sale or purchase or the import or export. 12. Maxwell in the Interpretation of Statutes, observed, to quote:- “A construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected. 12. Maxwell in the Interpretation of Statutes, observed, to quote:- “A construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected. Thus, where an Act plainly gave an appeal from one quarter sessions to another, it was observed that such a provision, though extraordinary and perhaps an oversight, could not be eliminated.” 13. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning, vide (1846) 6 Moore PC 1, (1914-15) All England Report 1061, (1940) 3 All England Report 549 referred. There has to be concentrated focus on the purpose of legislation and the text of the language, any deviation is likely to bring in hazardous result. AIR 1987 SC 1454 , (1988) 4 SCC 284 , 1975 AC 591, (2005) 7 SCC 484 relied.(Per Hon’ble K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.) (Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal) (SC) 2012 (30) LCD 2531. 14. In District Mining officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co., (2001) 7 SCC 358 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that function of the Court is only to expound the law and not to legislate. A statute has to be construed according to its intent and it is the duty of the Court to act upon the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, the Court has to choose the interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. 15. In Dadi Jagannadhan v. Jammulu Ramulu, (2001) 7 SCC 71 , it has been held that while interpreting a statute the Court must start with the presumption that legislature did not make any mistake and must interpret so as to carry out the oblivious intention of legislature. It must not correct or makeup a deficiency, neither add nor read into a provision which are not there particularly when literal reading leads to an intelligent result. 16. In Grasim industries Ltd. v. Collector of Custom, (2002) 4 SCC 297 , it has been held that every word and provision of a statute should be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used and not in isolation. 17. 16. In Grasim industries Ltd. v. Collector of Custom, (2002) 4 SCC 297 , it has been held that every word and provision of a statute should be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used and not in isolation. 17. In S.Samuel M.D. Harresons Malayalam v. UOI, (2004)1 SCC 256 , it has been held that when a word is not defined in the statute, a common parallence meaning out of several meanings provided in the dictionaries can be selected having regard to the context in which the word appeared in the statute. 18. In Deepal Girish Bhai Soni v. United India Insurance Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385 , it has been held that a statute has to be read in its entirety and the purport and object of the Act is to be given its full effect by applying principle of purposive construction. 19. In Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 , it has been held that the Interpretation of a statute depends upon the text and context there of and object with which the same was made. It must be construed having regard to its scheme and the ordinary state of affairs and consequences flowing there from – must be construed in such a manner so as to be effective and operative on the principle of “ut res magis valeat quam pereat”. When there is to meaning of a word and one making the statute absolutely vague, and meaningless and other leading to certainty and a meaningful interpretation are given, in such an event the later should be followed. 20. In Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavali, (2007) 6 SCC 81 , it has been held that the Court should construe a statute justly. An unjust law is no law at all. Maxim “Lex in justa non est.” 21. In Deevan Singh v. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi, (2007)10 SCC 528 , it has been held that while interpreting a statute the entire statute must be first read as a whole then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. The relevant provision of statute must thus read harmoniously. 22. In Deevan Singh v. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi, (2007)10 SCC 528 , it has been held that while interpreting a statute the entire statute must be first read as a whole then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. The relevant provision of statute must thus read harmoniously. 22. In a case in M.T. Khan v. State of A.P., (2004) 2 SCC 267 , while laying down the principles with regard to interpretation of Constitutional provisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “The question of interpretation of a Constitution would arise only in the event the expressions contained therein are vague, indefinite and ambiguous as well as capable of being given more than one meaning. If by applying the golden rule of literal interpretation, no difficulty arises in giving effect to the constitutional scheme, the question of application of the principles of interpretation of a statute would not arise. (Para 13)” “It is not possible to uphold the appellants’ contention that the appointment of Additional Advocates General could not be traced to the source of the State’s power under Article 162. Nonmentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not invalidate an order in the event it is found that a power therefor exists. (para 16)” 23. In the case in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2011) 3 SCC 139 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “If a legislature with limited or qualified jurisdiction transgresses its powers, such transgression may be open, direct or overt, or disguised, indirect or covert and it may encroach upon a field prohibited to it. Wherever legislative powers are so distributed, situation may arise where two legislative fields might apparently overlap, it is then the duty of the Courts, however, difficult it may be, to ascertain to what degree and to what extent, the Authority to deal with the matters falling within these classes of subjects exist in each legislature and to define, in the particular case before them, the limits of respective powers. It could not have been the intention that a conflict should exist; and, in order to prevent such a result the two provisions must be read together, and the language of one interpreted, and, where necessary modified by that of the other” 24. It could not have been the intention that a conflict should exist; and, in order to prevent such a result the two provisions must be read together, and the language of one interpreted, and, where necessary modified by that of the other” 24. In State of T.N. v. M. Krishnappan, (2005) 4 SCC 53 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the Constitution provides a field of legislation, it has to be read in the broadest possible terms. 25. There appears to be no ambiguity in the letter and spirit of Article 286 of the Constitution of India. It should be interpreted as a whole right from the head note i.e., beginning which indicates that it relates to imposition of tax on sale and purchase of goods. Thus, if the sale and purchase of goods take place outside the country and brought into the territory of India, no tax may be imposed but when it is brought into the State like in the present case, the State of U.P., sub-clause (b) of Article 286 does not seem to come in the way. For example, in case certain items are sold within the State of U.P. for export, then no tax may be imposed on such sale. Similarly, in case sale and purchase take place outside the country no tax may be imposed on such transactions. But it may be noted that if sale and purchase take place outside the country, it does not necessary mean that such goods and item shall come in only one State. It may be brought into different States including State of U.P. Even part of items of such sale and purchase outside the country may be brought in a particular State or in another State. Sub-clause (b) of clause (1) does not seem to come in the way to impose tax at the entry level. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not objected to 4% tax imposed by the State of U.P., when an item is brought into State from other States. His objection is based on classification done on account of higher tax rate with regard to items brought into the State of U.P. Which has been imported from outside the country. The classification does not seem to suffer from vice of arbitrariness. There is rationale behind it. His objection is based on classification done on account of higher tax rate with regard to items brought into the State of U.P. Which has been imported from outside the country. The classification does not seem to suffer from vice of arbitrariness. There is rationale behind it. In case, items or goods are brought to State of U.P., from other States, it shall be produce of own country but where goods are brought from outside the country into the State of U.P., in pursuance of sale and purchase taken place outside the territory of India, then the income benefit may go to the foreigners. The imposition of higher tax rate on the goods brought into the State of U.P., which is foreign material, does not seem to unjust and improper. 27. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Shree Mahvir Oil Mills (supra), seems to be misconceived. In the case of Shree Mahabir (supra) controversy deals with the situation where State of Jammu and Kashmir was facing problem because of higher cost of produce of the edible oil within the State than the adjoining State. In consequence thereof, the edible oil produced in the adjoining States were sold in Jammu and Kashmir on lower price than the price at which local manufacturer were able to sale. Hence the State of Jammu and Kashmir exempted from tax the edible oil manufactured and produced in the State itself. To certain limit exemption was for the period of five years which was later on extended to further five years. On appeal Hon’ble Supreme Court held that exemption granted to local manufacturer/producer of edible oil is violative of Article 301 read with Article 304 (a) of the Constitution of India. The observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 24 of the judgement is reproduced as under:- “Now, what is the ratio of the decisions of this Court so far as Clause (a) of Article 304 is concerned? In our opinion, it is this : the States are certainly free to exercise the power to levy taxes on goods imported, from other States/Union territories but this freedom, or power, shall not be so exercised as to bring about a discrimination between the imported goods and the similar goods manufactured or produced in that State. The clause deals only with discrimination by means of taxation; it prohibits it. The clause deals only with discrimination by means of taxation; it prohibits it. The prohibition cannot be extended beyond the power of taxation. It means in the immediate context that States are free to encourage and promote the establishment and growth of industries within their States by all such means as they think proper but they cannot, in that process, subject the goods imported from other States to a discriminatory rate of taxation, i.e., a higher rate of sales tax vis-a-vis similar goods manufactured/produced within that State and sold within that State. Prohibition is against discriminatory taxation by the States. It matters not how this discrimination is brought about. A limited exception has no doubt been carved out in Video Electronics but, as indicated hereinbefore, that exception cannot be enlarged lest it eat up the main provision. So far as the present case is concerned, it does not fall within the limited exception aforesaid; it falls within the ratio of A.T.M. Mehtab Majid and the other cases following it. It must be held that by exempting unconditionally the edible oil produced within the State of Jammu & Kashmir altogether from sales tax, even if it is for a period of ten years, while subjecting the edible oil produced in other States to sales tax at eight percent, the State of Jammu & Kashmir has brought about discrimination by taxation prohibited by Article 304(a) of the Constitution.” Thus in Shree Mahavir Oil Mills (supra) controversy relates to import of goods from outside the State and not from outside the country as the case in hand hence it does not extend any assistance to petitioner’s counsel. 28. In State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Embee Corporation, Bombay etc., 1997 UPTC 1086, Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with Article 286 of the Constitution of India alongwith Section 3 and 5 of the CST Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that sale need not precede the import. Their Lordship had interpreted the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the CST Act. Finding recorded by the Bombay High Court that there were two sales viz., the sale between the assessee and DGS&D and the foreign supplier and the assessee but both sales were integrated or inter-liked so as to form one transaction and, as such, the sale had occasioned the import of material liable for exemption from sales tax under the Act. Finding recorded by the Bombay High Court that there were two sales viz., the sale between the assessee and DGS&D and the foreign supplier and the assessee but both sales were integrated or inter-liked so as to form one transaction and, as such, the sale had occasioned the import of material liable for exemption from sales tax under the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the observation made by High Court and dismissed the appeal. 29. In A.V. Fernandez v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1957 SC 657 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Legislature cannot enact law imposing or authorising the tax thereon and they are not liable to any such imposition of tax in case sale and purchase was exempted from sales altogether. The very fact of nonliability to tax is sufficient to exclude the assessee from the calculation of the gross turnover as well as the net turnover on which sales tax can be levied or imposed. While considering the provisions contained in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of CST Act read with Article 286 of the Constitution of India their Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though for the purpose of registration of a dealer and submission of the returns of sales tax transaction may be included in the turn over but such inclusion shall not affect non liability of these transaction to levy or imposition of sale tax by virtue of provision of Article 286 of the Constitution of India and the corresponding enactment and the corresponding provision enacted in the Act (CST). 30. In S.Kodar v. State of Kerala, AIR 1974 SC 2272 , Hon’ble Supreme Court rules that State cannot impose tax beyond the legislative competence in terms of Entry 54 List II of the Constitution of India. 31. In M/s. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1983(4) SCC 45 , Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the decision rendered in Fernandez case (supra) held as under:- “The decision in Fernandez’s case, supra, is therefore clearly an authority for the proposition that the State Legislature notwithstanding Article 286 of the Constitution while making a law under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule can, for purposes of the registration of a dealer and submission of returns of sales tax, include the transactions covered by Article 286 of the Constitution.” 32. For the purpose of right of the State Government to impose tax, Entry No. 52, 56 and 60 of List-II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India, should be looked into. For convenience, Entry No. 52, 56, and 60 (supra) are reproduced as under:- “52. Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. 56. Taxes on goods and passengers carried by road or on inland waterways. 60. Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments.” A collective reading of the aforesaid three entries seem to confer power on State Government to impose tax in case goods are brought into the State of U.P. for consumption, use or sale therein or it is carried into the State of U.P. through road or on inland waterways. Entry No. 60 is wider and empowers the State Government to impose tax on trades. 33. Thus, the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as other cases referred to hereinabove, negate the State power to impose tax where transaction of sale and purchase took place outside the country. Article 286 of the Constitution does not debar the State to impose tax when an item is brought into the State. 34. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, Article 286 should be read in reference to context i.e., imposition of tax on sale or purchase of goods. Subject to condition of sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (b), sale and purchase of goods is condition precedent to ascertain the right of State to impose tax at its end. Imposition of tax at entry level where sale or purchase of goods are not involved, does not seem to come within the purview of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Article 286. Case relied upon by the petitioners’ counsel does not seem to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present controversy. 35. In view of the above, these writ petitions lack merit and fail. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. No orders as to costs. ——————