Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules against assessing authority's demand for entry tax after 7 years due to absence of legal provision.</h1> <h3>Sri Balakrishna Transport Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Tambaram I Assessment Circle, Chennai</h3> Sri Balakrishna Transport Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Tambaram I Assessment Circle, Chennai - [2010] 28 VST 356 (Mad) Issues:Challenge to order directing payment of entry tax under Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 after a lapse of seven years; Interpretation of provisions of the Act regarding assessment and liability to pay tax; Justification of assessment order by the assessing authority; Legal obligation to file return under the Act; Applicability of Supreme Court judgment clarifying definition of 'motor vehicle'; Assessment authority's power to assess importer for failure to furnish return; Statutory limitations for assessment and reassessment; Interpretation of plain and unambiguous taxation statutes; Authority to levy tax on importer who failed to file returns; Consideration of penalty under the Act.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging an order directing payment of entry tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 after a considerable period of seven years. The appellant, a firm, imported an Escort JCB excavator in 1995, which was not liable for registration under the Motor Vehicles Act at that time. The assessing authority issued a notice in 2001, followed by an assessment order in 2002, imposing entry tax and penalty. The appellant contested the levy, citing absence of legal obligation to register the vehicle and file returns at the time of import.The learned single judge opined that the appellant was not required to register the vehicle in 1995, and only after a Supreme Court judgment in 2001 did the necessity for registration arise. However, the appellant was directed to pay tax as per the assessment order, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the Act lacked provisions for assessing an importer for failure to submit a return, emphasizing no liability existed at the time of import due to the vehicle not meeting registration criteria.The Special Government Pleader defended the assessment order, citing Rule 12 of the Entry Tax Rules permitting information gathering for assessments. The Act aimed to prevent sales tax evasion on vehicles brought into Tamil Nadu. The Act defined 'motor vehicle' in alignment with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and mandated tax on vehicles liable for registration in the state. Sections 7, 7A, and 8 outlined filing returns, assessment procedures, and limitations for assessments and reassessments.The judgment highlighted the significance of the Supreme Court's clarification on the definition of 'motor vehicle' in 2001, post which the assessing authority issued the notice and assessment order. The absence of a specific provision in the Act for assessing importers failing to file returns constrained the authority's power to assess post-import based on subsequent clarifications. The judgment stressed interpreting plain taxation statutes without adding provisions not explicitly stated.Ultimately, the Court held the assessing authority unjustified in demanding entry tax from the appellant, emphasizing the absence of legal provision enabling assessment for failure to file returns. The Court referenced a Supreme Court case on reasonable exercise of jurisdiction in the absence of prescribed limitations for reassessment. As the penalty was set aside by the single judge and not appealed, the Court deemed it impermissible for the respondent to collect penalty, allowing the writ appeal and setting aside the payment directive.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found