Allowed

M/S. Vishnu Automation, v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC3 Sept 2021WP/17957/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the respondent's order imposing Entry Tax and penalty for the Assessment Year 2001-02. It held that retrospective imposition was impermissible as the relevant goods were made taxable only via an amendment effective from 1st July 2002, after the purchase occurred.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.5.2006 imposing Entry Tax and penalty for the Assessment Year 2001-02 is quashed.

M/S. Vishnu Automation, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.17957 of 2006

¶6

M/s Vishnu Automation,
Represented by its Partner S. Saravanan
1/45, New Thillai Nagar, Second Avenue,
4th Cross, Marudhamalai Main Road,
P.N. Pudur P.O., Coimbatore -41

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Vs

¶9

The Commercial Tax Officer (Full Additional Charge)
Perur Assessment Circle,
18, Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore - 18

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling
for the records of the Respondent in his proceedings in Entry
Tax 01-02 (TNGST RC 1921796) dated 12-05-06 and quash the same
as illegal and to issue any further direction or order as this
Honourable High Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and render justice.

¶12

For Petitioner: R.Senniappan.
ForRespondent : Mr.V.Veluchamy
 Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The assessment order dated 12.5.2006 passed by the
respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶15

2. The petitioner is a Registered dealer and an assessee
on the books of the respondent. The respondent issued show cause

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

notice for Entry Tax for the year 2001-02 on 27.03.2006, wherein
proposed to fix a turnover of Rs.32,46,718/- and bring the same
tax to tax at 4% under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of
Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. The respondents further levied
penalty under Section 10(2) of the said Act. The petitioner
submitted its objections on 19.4.2006, stating that the
petitioner is not liable to pay as he purchased the steel rods
involved in the business during the assessment year and
therefore for the particular Assessment Year 2001-02, the
petitioner is not liable to pay Entry Tax and consequently, the
impugned order lacks jurisdiction.

¶18

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the
attention of this Court with reference to the amendment issued
in Notification G.O.Ms.No.81, Commercial Taxes (C2) dated 1st
July 2002. As per the said amendment, the steel rods and steel
semis were inserted with effect from 1st July 2002. As far as the
iron and steel are concerned, the amendment was issued in
G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 27th March 2002. However, the petitioner
states that he purchased semis steel roads, which was inserted
in the schedule only with effect from 1st July 2002.

¶19

4. The learned Government counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent is unable to dispute the said amendment published
in Notification dated 1st July 2002.

¶20

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the steel
rods are inserted in the Schedule for the purpose of levying tax
only through amendment with effect from 1s July 2002 and
therefore, the levy of Entry Tax is to be made prospectively
with effect from the date of Notification and retrospective
imposition is impermissible. As on the date, when the petitioner
purchased steel rods during the Assessment Year 2001-02, it was
not made available in the list of taxable goods under the Entry
Tax Act. Thus, the respondent had no authority to levy tax in
respect of the Assessment Year 2001-02 as the amendment was
effected with effect from 1st July 2002 beyond the period of the
Assessment Year 2001-02.

¶21

6. This being the factum established, the impugned order
passed by the respondent in proceedings in Entry Tax 01-02
(TNGST RC 1921796) dated 12.5.2006 is quashed and the writ
petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

Nst

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

To

¶29

The Commercial Tax Officer (Full Additional Charge)
Perur Assessment Circle,
18, Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore - 18.
+1cc to Mr.R.Senniappan, Advocate, S.R.No.44776
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.44947

¶30

W.P.No.17957 of 2006

¶31

NR(CO)
RLP(24/09/2021)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S. Vishnu Automation, v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vishnu Automation, v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Blackj and White Media Vs the Principal Secretary

Md. Shoukath Vs the Corporation of Chennai

Tvl.Colourwing Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Gem Enterprises Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

M/S.Radel Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M/S Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd., Vs the State of Tamilnadu