Karnataka HC dismisses petition challenging entry tax on wind mill parts due to failed dealer registration proof

Karnataka HC dismissed petition challenging entry tax levy on wind mill parts. Petitioner failed to establish dealer registration under KTEG Act 1979 when claiming exemption under 31.03.2000 notification. Court found supply contract included entry tax liability and petitioner later claimed benefit under 18.12.2010 notification, contradicting total exemption claim. Despite lacking merit, court granted three months to comply with prescribed procedure for renewable energy project exemption, failing which authorities may recover tax and interest.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim the benefit of the exemption notification dated 31.03.2000 or whether the notification dated 18.12.2010 was applicable to the petitioner.
2. Whether the notification dated 31.03.2000 was superseded by the notification dated 18.12.2010.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification Dated 31.03.2000:

The petitioner contended that the notification dated 31.03.2000 specifically exempted "all kinds of wind mills and parts and accessories thereof" from entry tax, which should apply to its wind energy project. The petitioner argued that this specific exemption should prevail over the general exemption provided by the notification dated 18.12.2010, which covered all renewable energy projects. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santhosh Maize and Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which emphasized that specific provisions prevail over general ones. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to produce the necessary exemption certificate from the Department of Energy, as required by the notification dated 18.12.2010, which was applicable to renewable energy projects established under the Karnataka Renewable Energy Policy 2009-14. The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 31.03.2000 as it did not fulfill the procedural requirements under the notification dated 18.12.2010.

2. Supersession of Notification Dated 31.03.2000 by Notification Dated 18.12.2010:

The respondent argued that the notification dated 18.12.2010, being later and comprehensive, applied to all renewable energy projects, including wind energy, and thus superseded the earlier notification of 31.03.2000. The court agreed with this interpretation, noting that the broader scope of the 2010 notification covered entrepreneurs involved in setting up renewable energy projects, which included the petitioner's wind energy project. The court found that the petitioner had acknowledged the applicability of the 2010 notification in its initial responses to the tax authorities. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner had entered into a contract with Gamesa, which included provisions for the payment of entry tax, indicating an understanding that the 2010 notification was applicable. Consequently, the court held that the notification dated 31.03.2000 was not applicable to the petitioner, and the notification dated 18.12.2010 governed the tax exemption eligibility.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of the exemption notification dated 31.03.2000 and was subject to the conditions of the notification dated 18.12.2010. The court granted the petitioner three months to comply with the prescribed procedures to claim the exemption, failing which the respondents could proceed to recover the tax and interest payable.

---