9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be determined as to whether, in these cases, the petitioner(s) (S.E.C.L.) was liable to pay the entry tax under section 3(1) of the M.P. (C.G) Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short, the Entry Tax Act ) or not? The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner(s), South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (S.E.C.L., a subsidiary of the Coal India Limited, C.I.L.) is a Government undertaking. The petitioner(s)' company carries on coal mining in various coal fields in the State of Chhattisgarh and is engaged in business of its sale. The National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C.), being set up at Korba, for generation of power, requires coal in a large quantity for which initially Gevra project of the petitioner-company was conceived. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (M.P.E.B) now Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (C.S.E.B) is another bulk purchaser of the coal. As per the pleadings in W.P. No. 4024 of 1999, there were written agreements for supply of coal with N.T.P.C. and M.P.E.B. The coal mines are nationalized and supply of coal is regulated by the Central Government. The method is that the industries requiring coal in their factories, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious years and made them liable for payment of entry tax under section 3(1) of the M.P. (C.G) Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (Entry Tax Act) and made various demands from them with respect to various assessment years which gave rise to causes of action to them for filing the instant writ petitions for the following main relief(s). W.P. No. 4024 of 1999 has been filed for quashing of the order of assessment levying the entry tax on the petitioner pertaining to the year 1995-96, annexure P10, as also the confirmation of the said order in revision filed as annexure P14 and the recovery notice filed as annexure P15. Likewise, W.P. No. 433 of 2001 has been filed for quashing of the re-assessment proceedings pertaining to the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 along with quashment of the order levying penalty vide annexures P11, P12, P13, P14 and P15; whereas W.P. No. 513 of 2001 has been filed for quashing of the order of assessment and demand notice levying the entry tax on the petitioner for supply of coal by it pertaining to the year 1996-97. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner(s) is that the authorities erred in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the provisions of section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act, which reads as follows: 3.. Incidence of taxation. (1) There shall be levied an entry tax, (a) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule II, into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein; and (b) on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule III, into each local area for consumption or use of such goods but not for sale therein; and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, who has effected entry of such goods: Provided that... (only relevant portion quoted). A bare perusal of the provisions of the Act would show that the entry tax is a tax on entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale in the course of business of a dealer. This tax is not a tax on sale or purchase of goods which is provided in general sales tax (GST). The key word used in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 is therein which clearly shows that for the purpose of imposition of entry tax, the goods must have entered into the local area of the concerned authority for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the decisions rendered in the matters of Burmah-Shell AIR 1963 SC 906, Hiralal Thakorlal [1976] 3 SCC 398 and Parekh Automobiles [1990] 1 SCC 367, the apex court held in the matter of Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal Co. [1994] 95 STC 5 (SC); [1994] 4 SCC 463 as follows: (page 8 of STC) ... It is true that Burmah-Shell [1963] Supp 2 SCR 216; AIR 1963 SC 906, Hiralal Thakorlal AIR 1976 SC 1446; [1976] 3 SCC 398 and Parekh Automobiles [1990] 1 SCC 367 were concerned with State enactments which empowered the municipalities to levy the impost. All the same a close reading of the said decisions does indicate that they have read the words 'sale therein' occurring in entry 52 of List II as meaning 'a sale of goods within a local area for consumption or use therein' though as a matter of fact, in a given case, the goods may be taken out and consumed there. The decisions clearly say that where the goods are sold within a local area for the purpose of being taken out of that local area and are actually taken out, no levy is permissible under entry 52. It is not possible to distinguish the said decisions on the grounds suggested by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
