Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 415 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of Entry Tax - aluminum extrusion - falls under Entry 11 of Part I of the Schedule of the OET Act or not - levy of penalty under Section 7(5) of the OET Act undisputedly when the assessment was completed under Section 7(3) of the OET Act - HELD THAT:- In K.V. MATHEW VERSUS DISTRICT MANAGER, TELEPHONES, ERNAKULAM AND ORS. [1983 (10) TMI 296 - KERALA HIGH COURT] the High Court was considering the expression ‘institution’ and in the context of scope of the expression, it was held that “the word et cetera does not share the character of an inclusive definition and cannot therefore enlarge the scope of the expression ‘institution'. Where the entry is meant to include all kinds of products, the entry itself would read like it does in the case of Tobacco. In fact, in the context of entry ‘Tobacco and Tobacco products’, this Court has recently in M/S. PATEL BROTHERS & CO. VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA [2022 (8) TMI 253 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] has held that ‘bidis’ would form part of ‘tobacco products’. If Entry 11 had read ‘sheets, rods of non-ferrous metals including Aluminum and products thereof’, then it would have been arguable that it covered Aluminum extrusions as well. However, the word here used is ‘etc.’ and it is used soon after the words “sheets, rods” and, therefore, will include only a similar kind of product i.e. like sheets and rods. Aluminum extrusions, the pictures of which are readily available on the net, and which were viewed in the Court in the presence of the counsel, are distinct and different from ‘sheets and rods.’ The Court is of the view that Aluminum extrusions brought into Odisha from outside Odisha by the Petitioner is not exigible to entry tax @ 1% since it is not covered by Entry-11 of Part-I of the Schedule to the OET Act - application is answered in the negative by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the levy of penalty under Section 7 (5) of the OET Act - petition disposed off.
|