O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated

12.12.2003 passed by the respondent bearing reference No.RC.1279/2000 B1.

2. By the impugned order, the respondent had demanded a sum of Rs.1,18,400/- towards Entry Tax payable under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. Apart from the tax, a penalty of Rs.2,36,800/- has been demanded from the petitioner.

3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the “MMV Hydraulic Mobile Crane” from M/s.Balagi Agencies in Pondicherry which was originally registered in the name of the said company / owner on 21.11.1994. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the year of the manufacture of the vehicle is 1994 and in terms of proviso to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990, the petitioner is exempted from paying the entry tax. It is submitted that 15 months time prescribed under Clause (a) to proviso to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 had expired in the year 1996 itself, whereas, the petitioner purchased the vehicle in the year 1998 and therefore, the question of imposing entry tax on the petitioner under the provisions of the aforesaid Act cannot be countenanced.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of proposal to demand from the petitioner, the petitioner has also re-transferred the vehicle back to the person in Pondicherry and therefore, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the entry tax. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rds Projects Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, (2007) 8 VST 574. It is submitted that as per the aforesaid decision, no entry is payable as “MMV Hydraulic Mobile Crane” is not a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. It is submitted that “MMV Hydraulic Mobile Crane” is not a 'motor vehicle' with the meaning of 'motor vehicle' in Section 2(i)

of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the plea of alternate remedy at this stage is not available in the light of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uflex Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, order dated 17.09.2021 in Civil Appeal Nos.4862 to 4863 of 2021.

6. Appearing on behalf of the respondent, the learned Government Advocate submits that to claim the benefit of proviso to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990, the vehicle should have been transferred by the petitioner prior to such claim. In this connection, the learned Government Advocate submits that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in T.Chitty Babu Vs. Union of India, rep.

by the Secretary, Department of Law and Justice, (2020) 5 MLJ 577.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent also placed reliance on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others Vs. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited, order dated 03.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021, wherein, in paragraph No.11, it was held as follows:-

11.The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is:

i. a breach of fundamental rights;

ii. a violation of the principles of natural justice;

iii. an excess of jurisdiction; or iv. a challen