2008 (8) TMI 1008 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the quashing of a notice regarding entry tax assessment for a specific year, the refund of entry tax paid by a petitioner-company, the challenge to the division bench judgment declaring entry tax provisions as ultra vires, and the effect of the pendency of Special Leave Petitions on the operation of the impugned judgment.

Entry Tax Assessment Quashing and Refund:
The petitioner sought to quash notice No. 383 dated 6.2.2007 for entry tax assessment for the year 2005-06 and requested a refund of the entry tax paid. The petitioner's counsel argued that despite a division bench declaring entry tax provisions as ultra vires, the respondents were issuing assessment notices. Referring to a similar case, the counsel highlighted that the division bench directed a refund in such circumstances.

Challenge to Ultra Vires Declaration:
The State, represented by Mr. P. Modi, contended that the division bench judgment declaring entry tax provisions as ultra vires had been challenged and was pending before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition. The State's counsel argued that due to the pending petition, no direction for refund could be issued.

Effect of Special Leave Petitions on Judgment:
The Court deliberated on whether the pendency of Special Leave Petitions would stay the operation of the impugned judgment. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Court explained the distinction between granting special leave to appeal and hearing the appeal. The Court emphasized that the mere pendency of Special Leave Petitions would not automatically stay the operation of the judgment. However, the respondents were given another opportunity to seek interim relief from the Supreme Court, failing which the Court would pass an appropriate order.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court allowed time for the State to obtain an order from the Supreme Court regarding the pending Special Leave Petitions. The case was adjourned for four weeks, with a warning that if the State failed to secure an appropriate order, the Court would proceed to pass an order in accordance with the law.