(1.) THE petitioners in all these cases are either dental doctors, or hospitals, who have purchased dental chairs from manufacturers located outside Kerala. THE dental chairs transported by the suppliers for delivery to the petitioners were detained at the sales tax checkpost demanding entry tax on the ground that the dental chair is furniture which attracts entry tax under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, hereinafter called the Entry Tax Act. Furniture is an item introduced to the Schedule to the Entry Tax Act by notification, SRO 294/2000 with effect from 1. 4. 2000. THErefore after the amendment, there will be an entry tax on the entry of furniture from outside Kerala to Kerala for use or sale in Kerala. Of course, there is general exemption under notification for goods transported by registered dealers into Kerala for resale of such goods on which sales tax is payable by them in Kerala. However, articles brought by the consumers from outside the State for their own use in Kerala will attract every tax. THE respondents in all these cases who are either sales tax authorities attached to border checkposts or Intelligence Officers of the sales tax department or assessing officers under the Entry Tax Act have issued notices to the petitioners on the ground that dental chairs are furniture and therefore the same attracts entry tax. Of course, if the item answers the description of furniture as contemplated under the Entry Tax Act, then of course the petitioners will be liable to pay entry tax as the petitioners are using these articles in their clinics.
(2.) I heard counsel for the petitioners and also the Government Pleader for the State.
(3.) THE decision of this Court in E. V. Industriess case, 33 STC 308 does not pertain to the item Dental Chair. THE item dealt with in that decision are only hospital table, cots, bedside lockers, etc. Those are nothing but furniture articles used in a hospital. THErefore that decision is not applicable to the facts of this case, and the clarification issued by the Commissioner under S. 59a of the KGST Act also does not reflect the correct legal position. THE Entry Tax Act does not confer any power of clarification on the Commissioner, and so much so he could not issue a clarification in exercise of the powers under S. 59a of the KGST Act. Anyhow, since I do not agree with the clarification issued by the Commissioner, there is no need to go into his jurisdiction to issue the same. In fact the clarification issued by the Government of Kerala in the context of Sales Tax Act referred to by the petitioners appears to be correct and acceptable because the very object of entry tax itself, as stated in the preamble, is to prevent evasion of sales tax. Going by the object of the statute, entries in the Schedule to the Entry Tax Act and the KGST Act should be given the same meaning. THErefore I feel that the contention of the petitioners is correct and the respondents have no right to demand entry tax in respect of Dental Chair brought by them. THE Original Petitions are accordingly allowed. I declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay entry tax or penalty for the import of Dental Chair and the assessing officer has no right to demand the same. THE impugned proceedings in all the OPs. at whatever stage shall stand cancelled and if at all any appeals are filed, it is made clear that they are unnecessary as the original proceedings stand hereby quashed. .