Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SHEEL NAGU, AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI), JJ.
M/s Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Project - Appellant
Versus
The Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 232 of 2004
Decided On : 09-10-2023
ORDER :
1. The question that crops up in this petition is as to whether the building material brought into the local area - Singrauli, for construction of Thermal Power Plant prior to commencement of production & generation of electricity can, attract Entry Tax or not ?
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved is no more res integra in view of decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.2024 of 2008 which is founded upon the principle laid down in an earlier case of Co-ordinate Bench in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Sidhi Vs. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Others , (2001) 34 VKN 90.
3. Bare facts giving rise to the present case are detailed below in a chronological manner :-
| Date & Annexure | Details |
| The NTPC establishes petitioner as its unit for which, plant and machinery and construction material were brought into the local area of Singrauli. This plant and machinery were assessed to entry tax under provisions of Nagriya Kshetra Mein Maal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam (or, the Entry Tax Act). | |
| 1990-91 (P-1) | Petitioner filed quarterly return under Entry Tax Act claiming exemption from Entry Tax on various items including plant and machinery. |
| 28.04.1994 (P-2) (original assessment) | Respondent No.2 allowed the deduction to the tune of Rs.11,06,66,810/- in respect of plant and machinery but disallowed certain other items such as spares, tools, purchase of iron and steel etc. |
| Petitioner filed an appeal against order of assessment. | |
| 23.12.1995 (P-3) | Appellate Authority Dy. Commissioner remanded the matter to the Assessment Officer directing reconsideration of the matter regarding plant and machinery (kindly note that the appeal was filed by the petitioner and remand on plant and machinery already allowed by Assessment Officer was suo-moto by the Appellate Authority. |
| The petitioner filed Second Appeal to the Board of Revenue against the appellate order dated 23.12.1995. | |
| 24.12.1997 (P-4) (First Reassessment) | Respondent No.2 (Assessing Officer) took up the matter for reassessment pursuant to order dated 23.12.1995 and disallowed all items including plant and machinery. |
| Petitioner filed revision against first reassessment order dated 24.12.1997 before respondent No.1. | |
| 06.09.1999 (P-5) | Respondent No.1 allowed the revision holding that Entry Tax was not leviable on plant and machinery but remanded the case in respect of incidental goods/building material/iron and steel etc. |
| 31.03.1999 (P-6) | Second Appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 23.12.1995 (P3) passed by First Appellate Authority was taken up by the Board of Revenue and the matter was again remanded to the Assessment Officer to decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court which held that no Entry Tax is leviable on plant and machinery. |
| 27.12.2001 (P-7) (Second reassessment) | The respondent No.2 undertook fresh reassessment and upheld the contention of the petitioner that no Entry Tax is leviable on plant and machinery, as already allowed in the original order of assessment- P/2. (Kindly note that order dated 27.12.2001 has been passed in pursuance of the order dated 06.09.1999 (wrongly mentioned as 07.09.1999) passed in revision by respondent No.1.) |
| 27.06.2002 (P-8) (Third reassessment) | Pursuant to order of Board of Revenue dated 31.03.1999, respondent No.2 once again took up assessment and disallowed the claim regarding plant and machinery (Kindly note that secondary assessment had already been done on 27.12.2001). Therefore, this reassessment was in any case uncalled for. Perhaps the two reassessment, i.e., 27.12.2001 (P/7) and 27.06.2002 (P/8) which are mutually conflicting have been done because of two separate remand orders passed by two separate authorities. |
| Petitioner filed revision before respondent No.1 against order dated 27.06.2002. | |
| 26.06.2003 (P-9) | Respondent No.1 rejected the Revision Petition and among other things, disallow |
Materials brought for construction of a power plant before business commencement are not subject to Entry Tax, reaffirming the principle that entry tax applies only when goods are brought in the cour....
The court affirmed that classification of goods as used primarily for manufacturing triggers enhanced entry tax rates under applicable provisions of the Entry Tax Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to mention raw materials in the registration certificate should not deprive the petitioner of the statutory concession.
Vehicles designated for factory use are exempt from taxation as 'motor vehicles' under the Entry Tax Act, reaffirming that such classification depends on intended use.
BOT contracts qualify as works contracts under tax law, with deferred toll payments constituting a sale, thus validating tax assessments during construction prior to toll collection.
Refining crude soybean oil into refined oil constitutes a manufacturing process, making it liable for Entry Tax, as the refined product is considered consumed within the local area before its sale ou....
The Entry Tax applies to goods manufactured from taxed raw materials; the court affirmed the tax's legitimacy based on existing statutes.
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
