9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was a very meagre amount. Therefore, the appellant was questioned why such appeal should not be dismissed. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant humbly submitted that the amount involved can be meagre but there, was patent illegality having been done by the impugned order defying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bose Abraham v. State of Kerala and Another - (200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority as well as the ld. Appellate Authority. If such a view was taken by them they should not have differed to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bose Abraham v. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 157. Very categorically he placed para 7 of the reported judgment which reads as under :- "We hold that the excavators and roadro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be dealt with in the course of assessment arising under the Entry Tax Act." 1.3 He further submitted that once the Apex Court has decided the excavator to be motor vehicle although the judgment was under Entry Tax Act of Kerala, the ratio being law of land that cannot be unequally applied by any forum and the Appellant cannot be dealt discriminately. Further, he submitted that the very b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he root of the matter and there was a perpetuating illegality apparent from record itself, the appellant deserves consideration to uphold the majesty of law. The ld. Appellate Authority has no cogent reason nor basis to uphold the order of adjudication. Mechanical adoption of the order of adjudication was patent from the impugned order. On the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
