Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (9) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... outside the scope of Entry Tax Act and therefore not liable for payment of Entry Tax. There are no fault with the petitioner when they had not paid the Entry Tax at the time of import. Furthermore, when the Enforcement Wing of the respondents had insisted for payment of the Entry Tax, the petitioner had immediately paid the Entry Tax of ₹ 22,59,619/- on 26.10.2005 itself. However for such omission, the second respondent herein had now invoked Section 15(1) of the Entry Tax Act and proposed a penalty, at twice the amount of the Tax. It is no doubt true that the second respondent is empowered to levy such a penalty. However, this is the case where the Entry Tax was not paid by the petitioner on the first instance, in view of the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d in [2018] 57 GSTR 6 (SC) , had subsequently upheld levy of entry tax on imported vehicles. 3. On 26.10.2005, the Enforcement Wing conducted a verification, pursuant to which, the petitioner had admitted omission to pay Entry Tax and accordingly, an amount of ₹ 22,59,619/- was paid by the petitioner on the same day itself. However the present impugned notice has been issued, proposing to levy penalty at twice the amount of tax as per Sec 15(1) of the Entry Tax Act, 1990. 4. Mrs.Radhika Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on the date of their import, the prevailing laws exempted the petitioner from payment of Entry Tax, and hence they were under the bonafide belief that they were not required to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ayment of Entry Tax. This position of law continued till the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala and others Vs. Fr. William Fernandez and others [2018 (57) GSTR 6 (SC)] decided on 09.10.2017 that the vehicles imported into a country would be subjected to Entry Tax. Admittedly, the petitioner had imported the three vehicles from Germany, in the year 2004/2005, at which point of time, the law was to the effect that Entry Tax is exempted for imported vehicles. While that being so, I do not find any fault with the petitioner when they had not paid the Entry Tax at the time of import. Furthermore, when the Enforcement Wing of the respondents had insisted for payment of the Entry Tax, the petitioner had immediately paid the Entry Tax of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... items in the turnover do not seem to be intentional. Though we have now held that the appellants were not right in not including the amounts of planting subsidy and transport subsidy in the taxable turnover, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be correct to say that they had acted deliberately in defiance of law or that their conduct was dishonest or they had acted in conscious disregard of their obligation under the Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Authorities were, therefore, wrong in passing the orders of penalty and upholding the same. The High Court also, in our opinion, committed an error in upholding the orders of penalty. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed. The order of the High Court and the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the affairs of the Company in failing to register the Company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the Company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out . 9. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the affirmed view that the proposed levy of penalty is unjustifiable and opposed to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, the impugned notice in Notice Ref.492/2006 dated 23.03.2006, is set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition stands allow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates