9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ingots purchased by the appellant from outside the State, is liable for entry tax and whether there is any discrimination in classification of the goods. Without a declaration regarding the legality of imposing entry tax for Ingots is held to be unconstitutional, refund of tax already collected will not arise. Writ Petition filed for a Mandamus, seeking refund of entry tax, is premature and to be dismissed. - W.A.(MD)No.651 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice S.Vaidyanathan And Honourable Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran For the Appellant : Mr.S.Rajasekar For the Respondent : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT S.VAIDYANATHAN, J. AND G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. The appellant herein is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tamil Nadu [2007 (7) VST 367 (Mad)]. 3.When the said writ petition was taken up for consideration, it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the order of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in I.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2007 (7) VST 367 (Mad)] and they are clubbed with the batch of writ petitions arising from few other States imposing entry on goods, similar to the Act and the same is pending. Therefore, the learned Single Judge observed that the validity of the Act is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the appellant has to necessarily wait till the verdict is passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the S.L.P. preferred by the respondent. With the said observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xes as are discriminatory in nature are prohibited by Article 304(a). It follows that levy of a non-discriminatory tax would not constitute an infraction of Article 301. 1159.3. Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 have to be read disjunctively. 1159.4. A levy that violates Article 304(a) cannot be saved even if the procedure under Article 304(b) or the proviso thereunder is satisfied. 1159.5. The Compensatory Tax Theory evolved in Automobile Transport case [Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406 : (1963) 1 SCR 491] and subsequently modified in Jindal case [Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 241] has no juristic basis and is therefore rejected. 1159.6. The dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the matters. 1161. The questions whether the entire State can be notified as a local area and whether entry tax can be levied on goods entering the landmass of India from another country are left open to be determined in appropriate proceedings.'' 6.Following the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. I.T.C. Limited and another [S.L.P.(C)Nos. 15082-15085 of 2007] , reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in I.T.C. Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2007 (7) VST 367 (Mad)], vide order dated 23.08.2017 and has passed the following order:- ''In the light of the judgment of a Nine Judge Bench in the case of Jindal Stainless Steel vs. St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
