Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, G.ARUL MURUGAN, JJ.
M/s.Bharathan Publications Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer – Respondent
W.P.No.22569 of 2007
Decided on : 09-08-2024
TAXATION - ENTRY TAX - The court denied the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to refund entry tax paid, citing the Supreme Court's validation of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1990. The court allowed the petitioner to seek a differential refund based on sales tax, directing authorities to consider the representation in accordance with established legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the refund of entry tax paid under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1990, arguing that the Act was unconstitutional at the time of payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the Act in a subsequent judgment, thus rejecting the petitioner's claim that no entry tax was payable.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of entry tax paid under the Act, considering the Supreme Court's validation of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the validity of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1990, was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and therefore, the petitioner's claim for a refund based on the Act's unconstitutionality could not be sustained.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to make a representation for a differential refund of entry tax over sales tax, which the authorities were directed to consider in accordance with law.
ORDER :
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.)
PRAYER: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to refund the entry tax of Rs.25,49,235/- paid by the petitioner.
The request for mandamus as set out in this Writ Petition is not liable to be acceded to. The petitioner prays for a refund of entry tax paid by it in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1990 (in short 'Act') on the ground that at the point in time when payment had been effected, the Act had been declared to be unconstitutional by this Court.
2. However, in a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. V. State of Haryana (AIR 2016 SC 5617), the validity of the Act has been upheld and in light of that judgment, the plea that no entry tax is payable by the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would pursue a tangential line of argument stating that the petitioner limits its prayer to a refund of the differential amount of entry tax and sales tax remitted, to the extent to which the entry tax is in excess of the sales tax. If that be so, it is more appropriate for the authorities to consider such request, as the facts and figures in relation to the payments would have to be collated and considered.
4. The petitioner is hence granted liberty to make a representation before the authorities and representation, if any, received by the authorities within a period of two (2) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order, shall be disposed, in accordance with law and taking into account the decisions in the case of State of Tamil Nadu V. Ganesh Automobiles ((2004) 134 STC 272, Khivraj Motors Limited V. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Fast Track Assessment Circle III, Chennai (W.A.Nos.3201 to 3204 of 2004 dated 04.02.2010), Commercial Tax Officer, Peelamedu South Assessment Circle V. Coimbatore Auto carage (P) Ltd. ((2011) 45 VST 69 (Mad.)) and Hindustan Motors Ltd. V. The State of Tamil Nadu and others (W.P.Nos.1656 of 1996 etc. batch dated 28.03.2024), within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of representation, after hearing the petitioner.
5. This Writ Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
The validation of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1990, by the Supreme Court negates claims for refunds based on prior declarations of unconstitutionality.
Once a tax is paid for a particular period, it is not open to the authorities to demand tax for any part of that period additionally on the sole ground that the vehicle has gone out of State and re-e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents must accept the payment of motor vehicle tax for the specified periods as per the Ninth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehic....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities had no jurisdiction to impose entry tax on goods not mentioned in the schedule of the New Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once tax has been remitted for a particular period, multiple entry of the vehicle is permitted into and out of the State of Tamil Nadu, and ta....
Dealers are entitled to adjust entry tax against sales tax liabilities or seek a refund for excess entry tax paid, particularly when sales are exempt.
The Entry Tax Act, 2012 remains valid post-amendment by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, and the compensatory tax theory is incompatible with the constitutional framework.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
