MADRAS REFINERIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 08.08.2001 made in WP No. 18592 of 1994 and WMP No. 28241 of 1994 on the file of this Court.) An interesting question as regards the demand for payment of entry tax as contemplated in The Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1990 has come up for consideration at the instance of the appellant, who sought for a clarification from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Tax, who, in his clarification letter dated 29.07.1994 clarified that the entry tax has to be paid on the full value of the new vehicle being registered, irrespective of the fact whether the chasis was purchased in Tamil Nadu or elsewhere and it has already suffered sales tax, hence, the appellant is liable to be assessed under the Act as a full vehicle since it is a new commodity, liable for new registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the required facts are that the appellant purchased a heavy vehicle chasis from M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited for which necessary tax under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was levied and paid. The said chasis was sent by the appellant to Bombay for the purpose of mounting a special tank and after completing the body building, the chasis, along with the tanker, was brought back to Tamil Nadu for which the appellant stated to have paid entry tax on the value of tank built on the chasis. When the appellant wanted to get the vehicle, namely, the fire truck registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, the question arose as to whether the appellant was liable to pay entry tax as contemplated under the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1990, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', on the whole of the vehicle i.e., including the chasis, along with the body mounted on it. It was in the course of that process, when the registering authority insisted the appellant for payment of entry tax under the Act for the whole of the vehicle, the issue went before the third respondent. When the proceedings were pending before the third respondent, the appellant sought for a clarification from the second respondent, who in turn, clarified the position in his communication dated 29.07.1994 to the following effect:-

(3.) IN his illuminating submission, the learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has purchased the chasis in this State, which had already suffered sales tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, thereafter, took the vehicle to Bombay for mounting a tanker to be built on the chasis and after the tanker was mounted on the chasis and after paying necessary sales tax in the State of Bombay, brought back the tanker mounted on the chasis. Therefore, the only liability of the appellant can be in respect of the tanker alone and not on the chasis, inasmuch as, the chasis was not purchased and brought into the State of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of sale. The learned senior counsel, by referring to the various provisions contained in the Act as well as the notification dated 12.03.1983, contended that having regard to the specific reference to the body built on chasis of motor vehicles, which are meant for mounting of motor vehicles, having been separately mentioned in the said notification, for the purpose of prescribing the rate of tax, the body, which was built in another State and brought into the State of Tamil Nadu should be independently and exclusively treated as motor vehicle for the purpose of levy of tax under the Act. IN support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court reported in (i) (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow vs. Pritam Singh) 22 STC 414 (ii) the Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in (Pothula Subba Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh) 30 STC 69 and (iii) the decision of the learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in (Ambala Coach Builders vs. The State of Haryana and another) 39 STC 44.