9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssembled ten chassis supplied by the foreign party in semi knocked down condition (SKD) and built but body in Kerala and exported the buses to the same party. The terms agreed between the petitioner and the foreign party as evident from exhibit P2, on which respondents also have no controversy are the following. (1) The foreign party will ship the chassis of vehicle in semi knocked down condition to India which will be cleared by the petitioner from customs on which no customs duty is payable as the goods are for export after body building. (2) The petitioner at his workshop in Kerala assembles the chassis, tests the same and then constructs bus body on it. (3) The bus after completion is exported by the petitioner to the foreign party at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner contended that the jurisdiction of the first respondent to make assessment under the Act particularly after the authoritative pronouncement by this court in the decision reported in Fr. William Fernandez v. State of Kerala [1999] 115 STC 591; [1998] 1 KLT 256 itself is under challenge and so much so this is one of the situations approved by the Supreme Court in the decision in Whirlpool Corporation's case [1998] 8 SCC 1 warranting interference by the High court under article 226 overlooking the statutory remedies. Apart from this, I feel this is a fit case where this court should interfere because if the petitioner is directed to pursue the statutory remedies against the killer dose of tax and penalty and wait for the result for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of this court above referred is concerned, he submitted that Supreme Court has granted stay against the said decision. With regard to the last contention of the petitioner, the submission of Special Government Pleader is that by building bus body on the chassis, the chassis is consumed in the manufacture of bus and therefore, according to him, the requirement of section 3(1) of the Act is satisfied to attract entry tax. I do not think the contention raised by the petitioner that motor vehicle chassis brought in SKD condition does not answer the description of "chassis of motor vehicle" can be accepted. The chassis are brought in SKD condition only for easy packing and for reducing cost of transportation. What is broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue whether the imported chassis attracts entry tax as the matter is at present pending before the Supreme Court. However, even if the decision of this court is reversed and the Supreme Court holds that entry tax is payable in respect of imported motor vehicles falling under item 1(a) of the Schedule to the Act, I do not think the same will go against the petitioner in this case because of my following decision on the third issue. Therefore petitioner's argument based on the decision of this court above referred and more important allegation of violation of article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution is left open to wait for decision by the Supreme Court. The admitted facts are that the foreign party shipped the vehicle chassis in SKD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion therefore to be considered is whether there was "consumption" of chassis by the petitioner to attract liability under section 3(1) of the Act. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that building bus body on the chassis does not involve any "consumption" of chassis and so much so there cannot be any liability. On the other hand, Special Government Pleader contended that once bus body is built, the chassis ceases to exist and therefore there is "consumption" attracting liability under the charging section. "Consumption" of course is not a term defined under the Act. Therefore, I do not think any technical meaning can be assigned to it. The meaning of word "consumption" as conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
