9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not permissible in view of section 4E of the Act till taxes on entry of the said vehicles are paid. 2.. According to the averments made in the writ petitions, the petitioners do not fall in the category of "dealer" as defined under clause (4) of section 2 of the Act and therefore keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Arun Manikchand Shah v. State of Karnataka [1995] 45 ILR Kar 3080, they are not liable to pay any tax on the entry of their vehicles and as such refusal to register their vehicles is arbitrary and illegal. 3.. In the case of Arun Manikchand Shah [1995] 45 ILR Kar 3080, keeping in view the exemption clause contained under section 28 of the Act, I held that (paras 15 and 16): "15. Coming to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, for being a dealer under the provisions of the Act, a person need not be necessarily dealing in the goods which has been caused to be brought into the local area. For being a dealer under the Act, it will suffice if he brings the said goods in the course of any business conducted by him, because the expression business includes any transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to trade, commerce, etc. For example, if a person carrying on transport business, though in common parlance may not be a dealer in motor vehicles in the sense of selling and purchasing motor vehicles, imports a vehicle into the State for the purpose of using the same for carrying on his business of transportation of goods or passengers, he c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tution of India. 7.. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Hansa Corporation AIR 1981 SC 463, the Supreme Court while considering the constitutional validity of the Act, has, inter alia, held that "to the extent the impugned tax is levied on the entry of goods in a local area it cannot be gainsaid that its immediate impact would be on movement of goods and the measure would fall within the inhibition of the article 301". But since it was found as a matter of fact that the President had accorded his sanction to the Act impugned therein, therefore it was held that the requirement of proviso to article 304(b)/255 of the Constitution of India had been satisfied. 8.. A similar challenge was made before this Court to certain amendments affecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al restrictions, viz., section 7(1)(a) of the amending Act 13 of 1982 required compliance with proviso to article 304(b) or article 255 of the Constitution; (d) that there having been no such compliance with article 304(b) of the Constitution and the provisions of section 7(1)(a) and 7(15) of the amending Act 13 of 1982 are unenforceable until such compliance is shown." 10.. In the present case as well, it cannot be disputed that the impugned deletion of section 28 of the Act results in subjecting the whole class of persons, namely, those falling in the category of non-dealers within the meaning of the Act to tax on import of motor vehicles into local areas with effect from April 1, 1995. Therefore, it has to be held that this amounts t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
