Dismissed

M/S.Jayarekha Contruction v. the Checkpost Officer

Madras HC13 Sept 2021WP/27814/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A 17-year-old writ petition seeking direction not to detain an excavator or demand advance entry tax was dismissed as the relief was no longer relevant without an impugned order and could not be founded on mere apprehension.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the prayer for mandamus to prevent tax levy and vehicle detention was refused as the relief was no longer relevant.

M/S.Jayarekha Contruction Vs the Checkpost… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 13.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WP No.27814 of 2004

¶6

M/s.Jayarekha Construction, Rep. By its Partner Mrs.S.Jayalakshmi, No.3/39, Gandhi Street, Nazarathpeth, Chennai – 602 103.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Checkpost Officer, Hosur Inward Checkpost, Hosur. ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, for a direction to the respondent not to detain the Excavator TATA HITACHI EX 200 LC to be transported by the petitioner and further direct the respondent not to demand Entry Tax in advance on the said commodity as held by this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.Nos.23832 to 23834/2003 dated 29.08.2003.

¶11

For Petitioner : No Appearance.

¶12

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondent not to detain the Excavator TATA HITACHI EX 200 LC to be transported by the petitioner and further direct the respondent not to demand Entry Tax in advance on the said commodity as held by this Court in W.P.Nos.23832 to 23834/2003 dated 29.08.2003.

¶13

2. The petitioner states that they are engaged in the business of civil works contract and using Hydraulic Excavators and Earth Movers in the course of such works contract and assessees on the files of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sriperumandur Assessment Circle. During the course of the business, the petitioner company has placed order for purchase of “TATA HITACHI MODEL EX 200 LC HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR” with

¶14

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

¶15

M/s.TELCO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMPANY LIMITED, DHARWAD. With an apprehension that the respondent may levy entry tax and stating that the entry tax cannot be levied in advance, in respect of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶16

3. The validity of levy of entry tax has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, whether the vehicle purchased by the petitioner falls within the definition of 'Motor Vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, or not, is to be factually verified by the respondent. Further, if the vehicle is adaptable for the road usage, then it is to be construed as a Motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶17

4. However, the relief as such sought for to prevent the authorities from exercising their powers under the provisions of the Act, cannot be granted. Only if any order levying entry tax is passed, then alone, the petitioner would get a cause for filing a writ petition. Mere apprehension regarding the levy of tax, cannot be construed as a right for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

5. Thus, the mandamus as such sought for to direct the respondent not to detain the vehicle and not to demand entry tax, cannot be granted. Furthermore, the writ petition was filed in the year 2004 and after a lapse of about 17 years, the relief sought has lost its relevance. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

ars

¶23

¶24

The Checkpost Officer, Hosur Inward Checkpost, Hosur.

¶25

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.46499

¶26

WP No.27814 of 2004

¶27

SV-I[co] NSK 29/09/2021

¶28

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

M/S.Jayarekha Contruction v. the Checkpost Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Jayarekha Contruction v. the Checkpost Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/.S the Kadri Mils (Cbe) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Ct

M.Moinuddin Sherif Vs the Assistant Revenue Officer

M/S. Sree Senniappa Gounder & Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Thiru .v.Palanivelu Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax

M/S.Amman Crans Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Vishnu Timbers Rep by Its Vs the Commrl Tax Officer-v