Gujarat HC remands entry tax case after 13-year delay for assessment of prior Rajasthan tax payment claim

The Gujarat HC disposed of a petition challenging constitutional validity of proceedings under the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. The petitioner contested a notice issued 13 years after vehicles entered Gujarat, arguing limitation barred proceedings and tax was already paid in Rajasthan at 12.5% rate. Without deciding on merits or limitation grounds, the HC remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for consideration of the Rajasthan tax payment claim, noting the department provided no input on this factual aspect.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality and violation of Article 304(A) of the Constitution of India.
2. Applicability of the period of limitation for assessment under the Entry Tax Act.
3. Principles of natural justice in the assessment process.
4. Validity of the assessment order given the tax paid under the Rajasthan VAT Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality and Violation of Article 304(A) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 13.09.2021 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the order passed under the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 (Entry Tax Act) is unconstitutional and violates Article 304(A) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners contended that since the trucks were purchased in Rajasthan and tax was paid under the Rajasthan VAT Act, no additional tax should be levied upon their entry into Gujarat.

2. Applicability of the Period of Limitation for Assessment under the Entry Tax Act:
The petitioners argued that the notice issued after more than 13 years was time-barred and thus invalid. They relied on the decision in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd., where the court held that actions must be taken within a reasonable time if no period of limitation is specified in the statute. The court noted that the decision in M.H. Khansuiya vs. State of Gujarat, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, stated that if the importer did not file a return, the limitation period under section 8(5) of the Entry Tax Act does not apply.

3. Principles of Natural Justice in the Assessment Process:
The petitioners claimed that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. They argued that they were not given adequate time to gather and present evidence due to the sudden inquiry initiated after 13 years. The court acknowledged this contention and noted that despite the petitioners' request for more time to produce old records, the assessment was carried out without considering this request.

4. Validity of the Assessment Order Given the Tax Paid Under the Rajasthan VAT Act:
The petitioners emphasized that they had already paid tax at the rate of 12.5% under the Rajasthan VAT Act when purchasing the trucks. They argued that this should exempt them from paying additional entry tax in Gujarat. The court did not quash the notice on the ground of limitation but remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The court directed the officer to examine the documents related to the tax paid in Rajasthan and address the issues in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the petition by remanding the matter back to the State Tax Officer, Unit-II, Ahmedabad, for a fresh decision within six weeks. The officer was instructed to carefully examine all the documents and address the issues without being influenced by the court's disposal. The petitioners were given an opportunity to gather and present substantive documents regarding the tax paid in Rajasthan.

---