9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he General Sales Tax Act shall be reduced to the extent of entry tax paid. For the availment of benefit under Section 4 of the Act, the assessee is required to establish a one-to-one nexus between the entry tax and VAT payment and prove that the payments relate to the same motor vehicles. It is only upon such onus being discharged, then the benefit of Section 4 would be available to the assessee. The respondents have only taken note of the shortfall under statement II. The conflict can only be resolved if the liability under both enactments is crystallized. The admitted position as on date is that while returns filed under the TNVAT Act have been processed and assessments completed, the returns of entry tax filed on 16.04.2008 are pending. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut in those returns. 4. To the impugned demand notice dated 28.04.2008 calling upon the petitioner to remit entry tax, the petitioner has filed a response on 12.04.2008 enclosing two statements relating to the entry tax payable as well as VAT paid. According to the petitioner, excess VAT of a sum of Rs. 21,91,677/- has been remitted and hence there would be no liability to entry tax in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Entry Tax Act, which provide a for set-off of excess entry tax as against VAT payment. 5. To be noted, that the claim made in the present case is in the converse. Section 4 of the Entry Tax Act provides for reduction in tax liability and states that where the importer of a motor vehicle remits entry tax, and becomes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a one-to-one nexus between the entry tax and VAT payment and prove that the payments relate to the same motor vehicles. It is only upon such onus being discharged, then the benefit of Section 4 would be available to the assessee. 9. We had, under our order dated 29.08.2024, directed as follows: It is the petitioner's case that a sum of Rs. 4,08,36,048/- has been paid as entry tax for the months of September, 2007 to February, 2008 and a set-off has been sought as against the value added tax payable for those months. 2. However, as, admittedly, returns have not been filed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990, it becomes incumbent on the respondent to confirm from the available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 971295 6372412 284 7884758 1512346 TOTAL 1531 326680383 40836048 1486 40582548 3293394 3039894 NET SHORT 252500 11. While according to statement I, the excess VAT paid is a sum of Rs. 21,91,677/-, statement II reveals deficit of a sum of Rs. 2,52,500/-. The respondents have only taken note of the shortfall under statement II. The conflict can only be resolved if the liability under both enactments is crystallized. The admitted position as on date is that while returns filed under the TNVAT Act have been processed and assessments completed, the returns of entry tax filed on 16.04.2008 are pending. 12. Thus, to balance the interests of the parties and aid in a proper resolution of the matter, the Court condones the delay in filing the entry t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
