Court affirms tax liability for imported machinery in specific assessment year; rejects revision, upholds Tribunal decision.

Hundai Engineering And Construction Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

Hundai Engineering And Construction Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - [2020] 80 G S.T.R. 60 (All) Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 4 and its Explanation under the Old Act.
2. Coverage of machinery imported during A.Y. 2000-01 under Section 4 of the Old Act.
3. Liability of the assessee to pay entry tax under Section 4(6)(ii) of the New Act upon resale of goods in the course of export.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Application of Section 4 and its Explanation under the Old Act
The assessee argued that the machinery imported into Allahabad during A.Y. 2000-01 was non-taxable since it was brought from outside the country. However, the court found that under the Old Act, Section 4 clearly imposed entry tax on goods brought into a local area for consumption, use, or sale, regardless of whether the goods were imported from outside the country. The Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Kerala vs. Fr. William Fernandez clarified that entry tax could be levied on imported goods once they entered the local area. Therefore, the Tribunal's application of Section 4 and its Explanation was correct.

Issue 2: Coverage of Machinery Imported During A.Y. 2000-01 under Section 4 of the Old Act
The court noted that the Old Act's schedule included machinery valued at more than Rs. 10 lacs as taxable. The entry of such machinery into Allahabad for use during A.Y. 2000-01 triggered the tax liability. The subsequent export of machinery in A.Y. 2004-05 was irrelevant to the tax liability that had already crystallized in A.Y. 2000-01. The Old Act did not provide any provision for reversing the tax liability upon subsequent export of goods.

Issue 3: Liability of the Assessee to Pay Entry Tax under Section 4(6)(ii) of the New Act
The assessee relied on Section 4(6)(ii) of the New Act, which exempts goods sold in the course of export from entry tax. However, the court emphasized that each assessment year is a separate unit for tax assessment. The taxable event of entry of machinery into Allahabad took place and was completed in A.Y. 2000-01. The subsequent export of the machinery in A.Y. 2004-05 did not affect the tax liability that had already crystallized in A.Y. 2000-01. The New Act's provisions for tax reversal or exemption did not apply retroactively to events occurring in previous assessment years.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the tax liability for the machinery imported during A.Y. 2000-01 was valid and crystallized by the end of that assessment year. The subsequent export of machinery in A.Y. 2004-05 had no bearing on the tax liability for A.Y. 2000-01. The revision filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the questions of law were answered against the assessee. The Tribunal's order affirming the assessment and demand of entry tax was upheld.