The issue appears to be covered by the decisions referred in order dated 05.01.2021 in W.P.Nos.30246 and 30247 of 2003. This Court had considered three decisions of this Court in the following cases and held as under:

(i) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ganesh Automobiles, (2004) 134 STC 272, (ii) Khivraj Motors Limited Vs. Assisstant Commissioner (CT), Fast Track Assessment Circle III, Chennai and another, 139 STC 233 (iii) M/s Coimbatore Auto Garage (p) Ltd., Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore, (2011) 45 VST 69 (Mad) order dated 20.03.2003 in W.P.Nos.9017 and

9018 of 2003.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the abetment if any as is contemplated under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1990 will apply only against tax liability under the TNGST Act and that there is no provision for refund of Entry Tax either by referring to Section 4 of the said Act or by referring to Section 11 of the said Act, and therefore, submits that the above decision rendered by this Court in W.P.Nos.30246 and 30247 of 2003, dated 05.012.2021 referring to the three other decisions of this High Court have to be distinguished.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has also referred the a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur reported in (1989) 1 SCC 101. In this connection a special reference is made in paragraph No.11 of the judgment wherein it has been held as that ''Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the ratio decidendi are classed as obiter dicta and are not authoritative'' and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the erstwhile TNGST Act, 1959, and therefore, on this account also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following 8 decisions some of which were referred in paragraph No.1 of this order:

(i). R.Gandhi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, (2008) VST 390 (ii). Khivraj Motors Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), W.A.Nos.3201 to 3204 of 2004 datd 04.02.2010 (iii). State of Tami Nadu and Another Vs. Ganesh Automobiles, 134 STC 272.

(iv). Coimbatore Auto Garage (P) Ltd., Vs.

Commercial Tax Officer, 2010 SCC online Mad 497.

(v). M/s.C.A.Motors Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer,W.P.Nos.36839 to 36841 of 2015.

(vi). Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs.

Gurnam Kaur, (1989) Supreme Court Cases 101.

(vii). TVS Motor Company Ltd Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, (2019) 13 Supreme Court Cases

403.

(viii). Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (2000)

6 Supreme Court Cses 359.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has specifically drawn the attention to the following passages from Professor P.J. Fitzgerald, editor of the Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edition explains the concept of sub silentio:

A decision passes sub silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind. The Court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronouncements upon. It may be shown, however that logically the Court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided point B in his favour; but point B was not argued or was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub silentio.

Therefore, it is submitted that the previous decisions which were rendered in the other cases were not binding support, therefore, submits that the order of this Court in W.P.Nos. 30246 and 30247 of 2003 need not be followed.

6(A). In this case I have considered the arguments advanced by the Learned counsel for the respondent