Four writ petitions were filed under Article 226 challenging entry tax orders dated 05.02.2002. The court held that the petitioners filed appeals which were rejected due to non-compliance with statute, but the petitioners did not take steps to restore these. Thus, the relief was denied and writ petitions dismissed.
Petitions dismissed, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP NOS.29542 TO 29545 OF 2002
WP No.29542 of 2002
Thiru.V.Palanivelu
.. Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I,
Pattukkottai.
.. Respondent
PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
respondent in his proceedings RC.4936(3)2001 (A1), Entry Tax
3/92-93, dated 5.2.2002 and Quash the same as illegal with
regard to imposition of penalty under Section 15(1) and 15(2) of
the Act 13 of 1990 and direct the respondent herein to return
the Entry Tax already paid by the petitioner.
WP No.29543 of 2002
Muthaiyan
.. Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I,
Pattukkottai.
.. Respondent
PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
respondent in his proceedings RC.4936(2)2001 (A1), Entry Tax
2/92-93, dated 5.2.2002 and Quash the same as illegal with
regard to imposition of penalty under Section 15(1) and 15(2) of
the Act 13 of 1990 and direct the respondent herein to return
the Entry Tax already paid by the petitioner.
WP No.29544 of 2002
T.Maria Michael
.. Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I,
Pattukkottai.
.. Respondent
PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
respondent in his proceedings RC.4936(4)2001 (A1), Entry Tax
4/92-93, dated 5.2.2002 and Quash the same as illegal with
regard to imposition of penalty under Section 15(1) and 15(2) of
the Act 13 of 1990 and direct the respondent herein to return
the Entry Tax already paid by the petitioner.
WP No.29545 of 2002
K.Subramanian
.. Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I,
Pattukkottai.
.. Respondent
PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
respondent in his proceedings RC.4936(1)2001 (A1), Entry Tax
1/92-93, dated 5.2.2002 and Quash the same as illegal with
regard to imposition of penalty under Section 15(1) and 15(2) of
the Act 13 of 1990 and direct the respondent herein to return
the Entry Tax already paid by the petitioner.
For Petitioner: Mr.R.Chellamuthu
in all Wps
For Respondent: Mr.V.Nanmaran
in all Wps. Government Advocate.
COMMON ORDER
The orders dated 05.02.2002, levying entry tax regarding
purchase of Diesel Agricultural Tractors, are under challenge in
the present writ petitions. As the facts pleaded and the
submissions made are one and the same, all these writ petitions
are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common
order.
2. Each of the petitioners herein purchased Mahindra
B.275 Model 35 HP (MICO) Diesel Agricultural Tractor, and the
respondent levied entry tax as per the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act,
1990 (Act 13 of 1990). Separate show cause notices were issued
and the petitioners submitted their objections. Considering the
objections, the orders impugned dated 05.02.2002 were issued by
the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/respondent herein.
3. The orders impugned would reveal that an appeal lies
before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, against
the said orders. Admittedly, the writ petitions are filed
challenging the original orders dated 05.02.2002 alone.
However, the petitioners state that they filed appeals
separately before the Assistant Commissioner, who in turn
returned the appeals on 21.03.2002 on the ground that the
assessees have not credited penalty amount into the Government
Treasury. In view of the fact that the assessees have not
fulfilled the conditions stipulated under provisions of the Act,
the appeals were rejected.
4. The revision filed by each of the petitioners before
the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Chennai, were also rejected on 22.05.2002 by stating that the
petitioners have not fulfilled the conditions prescribed under
Section 13(3) of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles
into Local Areas Act, 1990.
5. The petitioners have not taken any effort to restore
the appeals by complying with the provisions contemplated under
the statute. The appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected
merely on the ground that they have not complied with the
stipulations prescribed under the provisions of the Act.
Instead of complying with the requirements and representing the
same for the purpose of adjudication, the petitioners have
chosen to file the present writ petitions, challenging the
original orders dated 05.02.2002 alone. Thus, the relief as
such sought for cannot be granted. However, when the statute
provides for an appeal remedy, if any grievances exists, it is
for the petitioners to redress the same in the manner known to
law.
6. With these observations, the writ petitions are
dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
ars
To
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I,
Pattukkottai.
+2ccs to Mr.R.Chellamuthu, Advocate, S.R.No.46921, 46922
WP Nos.29542 to 29545 of 2002
PVS(CO)
RLP(05/10/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging entry tax orders should be allowed since the petitioners failed to comply with statutory conditions before the appellate authority.
Whether the petitioners have exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal and revision before approaching the High Court.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
V.Palanivelu
Muthaiyan
T.Maria Michael
K.Subramanian
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Pattukkottai
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court