SALES TAX INSPECTOR Vs. M P ITTOOP
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sales Tax Inspector
M P Ittoop
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Is a Mechanical Pavar Finisher, which is used for spreading the concrete mixed with coal tar on the road, a motor vehicle so as to be exigible to the levy of Tax under S.3 of the 'Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 1994:' This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has answered this question in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence, the respondents have filed this appeal.
(2.) The respondent - writ petitioner is the Managing Director of the partnership firm. It is engaged in the construction of the roads, etc. The respondent purchased the Pavar from M/s. Gujarat Apollo Equipments Limited, Gujarat. It was dismantled and loaded on a lorry. It reached the State of Kerala on October 4, 1998. The Sales Tax Inspector served a notice dated October 4, 1998 on the respondent's firm calling upon it to deposit an amount of Rs.92,880/- by way of Entry Tax. The value of the Pavar was fixed as Rs.9,28,780/-. The respondent objected. However, since he was in need of the equipment, the deposit was made. Thereafter, he approached the authorities for refund. Having failed, he filed a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, viz. O.P. No.5060 of 1999. The matter was considered by the learned Single Judge. The authority was directed to consider the representation dated October 23, 1998 and decide it within a period of one month. Thereafter the matter was kept pending for a considerable length of time. Ultimately, the respondent's request was rejected with the observation that he had "not produced any documents to substantiate" his claim. Thus, the request for refund was declined. A copy of the order passed by the authority on February 19, 2000 has been produced as Ext. P9.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order, the respondent again approached this Court through a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. In this petition, it was specifically pleaded that the equipment imported by the writ petitioner was used only for making roads. It was not a motor vehicle. It was not exigible to levy of entry tax. In fact, it fell within Entry 21 - 'other machinery', which had been exempted from the levy of tax vide notification dated June 3, 1998. Thus, the action of the authorities in levying and collecting tax was illegal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.