Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (1) TMI 522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entry tax was levied on foodgrains (rice and wheat) brought by the petitioner to local areas within the State of Bihar from outside the State and the penalty was imposed as the Commercial Taxes Officer held that the action of the petitioner in not paying entry tax on the entire value of goods imported by it but only on the value of goods sold by it in Bihar during the relevant period amounted to concealment within the meaning of section 32 of the VAT Act. The impugned order appertains to the first quarter of the year 2006-07, that is to say, for the period April 1 to June 30, 2006. In the writ petition, it is stated that a notice vide process No. 10410, dated August 25, 2006 (annexure 2) issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer was received .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ealment or suppression of imports. It was further explained that entry tax amounting to Rs. 62,17,92,239 was paid on goods (and not on the total value of the imports) because during the relevant period that was the value of the goods sold by the petitioner in Bihar. The balance quantity of goods, though imported, still remained in its godowns/warehouses unsold in this State. The Commercial Taxes Officer accepted that the figures stated in the show cause were the same as shown in the petitioner's return for the first quarter. He nevertheless, held that payment of entry tax only on the value of goods sold and not on the total value of goods brought in the local area amounted to concealment and hence, imposed penalty apart from levying e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , was saved by virtue of article 304(b) of the Constitution and was consequently a good piece of legislation. The amendments introduced in the Act by Amending Act 10 of 2001 (with effect from November 5, 2001) and by Amending Act 9 of 2003 and Amending and Validating Act 11 of 2003 (with effect from August 22, 2003) were, however, violative of the proviso to article 304(b) of the Constitution. On account of the amendments the Act was deprived of the protection of article 304(b) of the Constitution and was rendered constitutionally invalid and illegal. This position continued up to August 29, 2006 when as a result of further amendments introduced in the Act by Bihar Act 19 of 2006, the levy under it acquired the character of a compensatory .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Schedule. On the same date, the State Government issued another notification bearing No. S.O. 32 in exercise of the power under section 3(1) of the Act fixing the rate of entry tax on paddy, rice, wheat, etc., at four per cent of their value. It is an admitted position that at that time the rate of sales tax on paddy, rice, wheat, etc., was one per cent. In other words, the rate of entry tax on the goods in question was higher than the rate of sales tax by three per cent. Here it may be recalled that in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited [2007] 10 VST 140 (Patna), it was argued that following the amendment in the definition of "entry of goods" with effect from November 5, 2001 (by Amending Act 10 o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice imported from outside the State, Notification No. S.O. 32, dated April 1, 2006 fixing the rate of entry tax on those goods at four per cent of their value must be struck down for being higher than the rate of sales tax on those goods. This is another important ground on which this writ petition is bound to succeed. Since the writ petition succeeds on the two grounds as discussed above, it is not necessary to go into the other points raised by Mr. Sahaya. But I must observe here that leaving aside the constitutional validity of the Act during the period in question or the legality of the Notification bearing No. S.O. 32, dated April 1, 2006 on the admitted facts of the case, I am completely unable to justify the finding that there was a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates