The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to register an imported Audi car without paying Entry Tax. The court followed a Division Bench order holding that Entry Tax is leviable on imported vehicles and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.20339 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Mr.Narendrakumar Lanawathi ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Commercial Tax Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 2.Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes DC Central Division Greams Road, Chennai 600 006 3.The Registering Authority – Cum Regional Transport Officer Chennai-Central, Aynavaram Chennai 600 023 ... Respondents
Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Chennai Central, Aynavaram, Chennai 600 023 to register the AUDI AG, Ibis White Car bearing Chassis No.WAUZC84F28Y000197, Engine No.BPP 121204 in the name of the Petitioner without insisting upon payment of Entry Tax.
2
For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Prabhakar – N.A. For Respondents : Mr.M.Hariharan, AGP for R1 & R2
Mr.J.Ramesh, AGP for R3
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Chennai Central, Aynavaram, Chennai 600 023 to register the AUDI AG, Ibis White Car bearing Chassis No.WAUZC84F28Y000197, Engine No.BPP 121204 in the name of the Petitioner without insisting upon payment of Entry Tax.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a AUDI AG, Iblis White Car bearing Chassis No. No.WAUZC84F28Y000197, Engine No.BPP 121204 and brought the car to India through Jubilant Motors, who has done the shipment and paid customs duty for clearing the vehicle through the concerned customs authorities. Therefore, he presented the vehicle for registration before the 3rd respondent herein. However, the State Government in enacting
the tax law regarding motor vehicles being from other states has introduced “The Entry Tax Act”, 1990 (Act 13 of 1990. The said Act has no reference to the vehicles that are brought from abroad.
3
However as this law is known as “The Entry Tax Act”, the 3rd respondent has grossly misunderstood the purport of that act and sought to impose Entry Tax at the rate of 4% on the actual value of the vehicle that is about Rs.40,00,000/- including the customs duty and Value added tax on the actual value of the vehicle as accepted by the customs authorities. The entry tax payable as per the Act would be Rs.1,60,000/- and the same is demanded by the respondents herein, which is against the above said Act. Hence, the petitioner is before this court seeking appropriate relief.
3.No one represented on behalf of the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents have brought to the notice of this Court that the said
issue had already been dealt by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.32710 of 2005, 10982, 19035, 19933, 19934 of 2001, 125, 31822, 41040 of 2002, 10631, 29244, 30341, 31322 of 2003 ..., ..., ...., dated 29.01.2019. Wherein, the Division Bench had spoken whether the respondents are entitled to impose “The Entry Tax Act” to the imported vehicle brought from the outside country. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
4
“67.Thus, in our considered view, the judgment in the case of Fr.William Fernandez applied with full force to the cases on hand which arise under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act which is pari materia to the Kerala enactment, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and levy of entry tax on imported vehicles was upheld. Thus, we are of the clear view that the prayer sought for by the writ petitioners in these cases are not tenable and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
70.Therefore, in our considered view, there would be no necessity for a separate order to answer the reference and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fr.William Fernanez (supra) covers the issue referred for consideration
of the Division Bench.
71.Coming back to the arguments of Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior Counsel, it is submitted that
the above orders will clearly show that there was ambiguity and different views were taken by different Benches and under similar circumstances when the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 were put to challenge, wherein as per Entry 150 in the Schedule to the Act, articles
5
of food and drink sold to customer in 3 star, 4 star and 5 star hotels were taxable at 10% this was challenged as being discriminatory.
72.A Division Bench of this Court in Sangu Chakra
Hotels (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1985) 60 STC 125 allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the demand of higher rate of tax for star category hotels were discriminatory. The State Government filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was tagged along with other connected matters and the Supreme Court in Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association and others v. State of Kerala and others [1990 Vol. 77 STC 253], allowed the appeals filed by the State holding that there is a rational nexus exists for such classification and the classification is founded on intelligible differentia. Subsequently, one of the petitioners had filed separate appeals before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.101 and 102 of 1995, wherein, it was pointed out that after the Division bench judgment in Sangu Chakra Hotels (P) Ltd., entry was struck down and subsequently after the decision of the Supreme Curt in Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association (supra), entry was revived and in the interregnum, tax was not collected and
6
therefore, administrative waiver was granted.
75.At the first instance, we need to point out that
no Court can compel the Government to exercise its power to examine or for that matter to grant administrative waiver. It is a policy decision to be taken by the Government and it is not for the Court to dictate as to whether or not the Government should exercise such power. That apart, facts of the case in which Government granted administrative waiver subject to conditions vide G.O.Ms.No.157 dated 22.04.1996 was entirely different and cannot be applied to the present cases, which arise out of a different enactment, the purport and intent being totally different,. First of the decision was in the year 1999 holding that entry tax is leviable on import of vehicles. Another learned single Bench took a different view but did not distinguish the earlier decision, but chose to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Fr.William Fernandez. In the third decision, there has been a reference because in the third decision, the first decision was noted. However, we need not labour much to make a further probe on this issue because the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Fr.william Fernandez has been reversed by the
7
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matters have attained finality. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in W.P.No.33525 of 2007 is still in possession and ownership of the vehicle imported by them. The law on the subject as decided by this Court as early as 01.09.1999 holds that the entry tax is leviable on imported vehicles. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the submissions that the matter should be relegated to the Government for grant of administrative waiver.
76.For all the above reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed and it is held that the petitioners are liable to pay entry tax on imported vehicles brought into the State of Tamil Nadu for use or for sale. Insofar as the miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioners raising additional grounds are concerned, the learned Senior Counsel has not advanced any arguments, but their argument was only on the ground of administrative waiver in the light of the decision taken by
us in the preceding paragraphs. Hence, there is no necessity to consider the additional grounds raised in the miscellaneous petitions. Accordingly, the same stands closed. No costs.
8
kas
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
4.In view of the above decision cited supra passed by this Court, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.06.2019
kas Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking
To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Commercial Tax Dept. Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009
2.Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes DC Central Division Greams Road, Chennai 600 006
3.The Registering Authority – Cum Regional Transport Officer Chennai-Central, Aynavaram Chennai 600 023
W.P.No.20339 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
06.06.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Entry Tax is leviable on imported vehicles brought into Tamil Nadu.
Whether the petitioner is liable to pay Entry Tax on the imported Audi car.
Narendrakumar Lanawathi
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Commercial Tax Dept.
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes DC Central Division
The Registering Authority – Cum Regional Transport Officer Chennai-Central
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
