Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (11) TMI 996 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Levy of Entry tax with penalty - motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or not - HELD THAT - We do not think it will be proper for us now to relegate the appellant to the alternative remedy available under the Act. No doubt the Writ Court had dismissed the writ petition directing the appellant/petitioner to avail the alternative remedy but this writ appeal has been entertained by this Court and it has been pending for nearly 15 years. Hence we do not think we will be justified in relegating the appellant/petitioner to the alternative remedy under the Act. The Division Bench in SRI BALAKRISHNA TRANSPORT VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TAMBARAM I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE CHENNAI 2009 (2) TMI 787 - MADRAS HIGH COURT had held that there is no provision in the Entry Tax Act for assessing a person who fails to furnish a return under Section 7 of the Act. The appellant has admittedly not filed a return as required under Section 7 of the Act on the ground that the mobile crane is not a motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The vehicle was imported in the year 2001 and the notice impugned was issued in the year 2005. The order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition directing the appellant to take recourse to the alternative remedy available under the enactment is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|