2002 (2) TMI 1308 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the vehicles entered Tamil Nadu before the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990.
2. Legality of the assessment and revision of entry tax.
3. Allegations of tampering with check-post records.
4. Authority and influence of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on the assessment process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entry of Vehicles Before the Act:
The petitioner claimed that the vehicles entered Tamil Nadu on February 19, 1990, one day before the Act came into force on February 20, 1990. Initially, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes accepted this claim and granted an exemption. However, upon further verification, it was found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the vehicles entered Tamil Nadu before the Act's commencement. The authorities concluded that the vehicles did not pass through Tamil Nadu on the stated date, disqualifying them from the exemption.

2. Legality of Assessment and Revision:
The petitioner argued that the assessment and subsequent revision were influenced by higher authorities, specifically the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The court examined precedents, including:
- Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer: It was held that assessments made on instructions from superiors without the taxpayer's knowledge are against natural justice.
- S. Sewa Singh Gill v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi: Directions to make draft assessments for approval were deemed illegal.
- Income-tax Officer v. Eastern Scales (Pvt.) Ltd.: Directions from higher authorities interfering with quasi-judicial functions were considered unlawful.

The court found that in this case, the Commissioner did not directly interfere with the assessment process. The instructions to follow clarifications were general and did not amount to undue influence on the specific assessment of the petitioner's vehicles.

3. Tampering with Check-Post Records:
The respondent alleged that the check-post records were tampered with to show that the vehicles entered Tamil Nadu on February 19, 1990. Upon verification, it was determined that the records were indeed manipulated, supporting the respondent's decision to revise the assessment and levy the entry tax.

4. Authority of the Commissioner:
The court addressed whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had overstepped by issuing instructions that influenced the assessment. It was concluded that the Commissioner's instructions were general clarifications meant for all subordinates and did not specifically target the petitioner's case. Thus, there was no undue influence or interference in the quasi-judicial function of the assessing authority.

Conclusion:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the vehicles entered Tamil Nadu before the Act came into force. The allegations of tampering with check-post records were substantiated, justifying the revised assessment. The court held that the Commissioner's general instructions did not amount to illegal interference in the assessment process. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order requiring the petitioner to pay the entry tax was upheld. No costs were awarded.