9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 308 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of request for refund of difference of entry tax - Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 - HELD THAT - Section 11 of the Entry Tax Act cannot be pressed in to service for granting refund. However, this issue has answered against the respondent by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs Ganesh Automobiles, 2001 (9) TMI 1117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the Commercial Tax Officer Vs M/s.Coimabatore Auto Carriage (P) Ltd., 2010 (1) TMI 1148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . These writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondent to refund the excess amount within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund request under Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background: The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of refund requests for the difference in Entry Tax paid under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. Petitioner's Claims: The petitioner, a two-wheeler dealer, paid Entry Tax for specific assessment years at 9% rate, resulting in excess collection due to available adjustment under Section 4 of the Entry Tax Act, 1990. The refund claims were rejected by the respondent. 3. Legal Provisions: The rejection was based on Section 11 of the Entry Tax Act, 1990, which provides for refund of excess tax paid. The respondent argued that Sections 4 and 11 operate differently, with no provision for refund after adjustments. 4. Precedents: The petitioner cited previous court decisions like State of Tamil Nadu Vs Ganesh Automobiles and M/s Coimbatore Auto Garage (P) Ltd., where refund claims were upheld based on Section 11. 5. Court's Decision: The court considered arguments from both sides and found the respondent's interpretation consistent with the law. However, the court noted that previous Division Bench judgments supported refund claims under Section 11. 6. Division Bench Rulings: The Division Bench had held that excess tax paid entitles the petitioner to a refund under Section 11, as seen in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs Ganesh Automobiles and M/s Coimbatore Auto Garage (P) Ltd. 7. Contrary Arguments: Despite arguments favoring the respondent's stance, the court emphasized that previous Division Bench decisions overruled such interpretations, including the case of Khivraj Motors Limited. 8. Final Decision: Considering the precedents and observations, the court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondent to refund the excess amount within three months from the date of the order. 9. Conclusion: The court disposed of the writ petitions with the refund directive, highlighting the importance of following established legal interpretations despite contrary arguments. 10. Costs: No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
