2015 (4) TMI 493 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction of Commercial Tax Officer - jurisdiction to levy Entry Tax under the Tamil Nau Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 - Held that - Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted his objections as against the notice issued by the respondent inspite of granting sufficient time. The respondent has passed the impugned order only after the expiry of time granted to the petitioner to furnish reply. However, the respondent failed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Only on the said ground, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction to levy Entry Tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990; Lack of opportunity for personal hearing before passing the impugned order.

Jurisdiction Issue:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 14.1.2015, arguing that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to levy Entry Tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 on the purchase of an Excavator. The petitioner contended that a show cause notice was issued on 12.12.2014, but the impugned order was passed before the petitioner could respond. The petitioner claimed that the order was illegal due to the absence of a personal hearing. The court noted that the petitioner did not submit objections despite being given time, and the impugned order was issued without a personal hearing. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit objections within three weeks, and the respondent was instructed to provide a date for a personal hearing. The petitioner was also directed to pay 10% of the entry tax levy demanded by the respondent within three weeks.

Opportunity for Personal Hearing Issue:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was invalid as it was passed without affording an opportunity for a personal hearing. The court agreed with this contention, emphasizing that the respondent failed to provide a personal hearing despite the petitioner's right to one. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after granting the petitioner a personal hearing. The petitioner was instructed to submit objections within three weeks, and the respondent was required to schedule a date for the personal appearance of the petitioner. Failure to appear would allow the respondent to proceed in accordance with the law. The petitioner was permitted to raise all contentions before the authority concerned, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras, in a judgment delivered by Justice S. Vaidyanathan, addressed the issues of jurisdiction to levy Entry Tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990, and the lack of opportunity for a personal hearing before passing the impugned order. The court set aside the order, remitted the matter for fresh consideration, and directed the petitioner to submit objections and pay a percentage of the entry tax levy demanded. The respondent was instructed to provide a personal hearing, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles.