TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice no. 383 dated 6.2.2007 with regard to the entry tax assessment for the year 2005 -06 issued under the provisions of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into the Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993, as adopted and amended by the State of Jharkhand and further sought a direction to the respondents to refund the entry tax paid by the petitioner -company in respect of the assessment year 2005 -06 along with interest.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that although the provisions of entry tax have been declared ultra vires by a Division Bench of this Court, the respondents are issuing notices for assessment of entry tax. He further stated that having regard to the Division Bench judgment declaring the provisions of entry tax as ultra vires, the petitioner is entitled to refund the amount. 2007(4) JCR 153 directed to refund the amount together with interest. 4. Mr. P. Modi appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand submits that the judgment of the Division Bench has been challenged which is pending for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State further submits that in view of the pendency of Special Leave Petition, no direction could be issued for refund of the entry tax collected by the respondents. 5. The matter was listed on 26.6.2008 and on the request of Mr. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the State, the case was adjourned to enable him to bring the stay order from the Honoble Supreme Court with regard to the refund of tax collected by the respondents. But no stay order has been obtained in those Special Leave Petitions, pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that all Special Leave Petitions tagged with SLP No. 1101 of 2007 and although, notices were issued on interim relief also, but respondents are taking adjournment by letter of circulation and they are not pressing the stay matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2000(6) SCC 359 where Their Lordships discussed the effect uf pendency of Special Leave Petitions. 8. In para -14 of the judgment, Their Lordships observed as follows: -