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

....lls of Entries dated 20.04.2004, 07.12.2004, 11.03.2005, the petitioner had imported three heavy road laying vehicles. Owing to the then prevailing law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Fr. William Fernandez V. State of Kerala reported in 115 STC 591 (Ker), the petitioner had not paid the entry tax. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. Fr. William Fernandez and others reported 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 Rs. 22,59,61....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate of Tamil Nadu. 6. The law, as on date, is to the effect that the imported vehicles brought into the State of Tamil Nadu for use or for sale would be subjected to payment of Entry Tax. Previously, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Fr. William Fernandez's case (supra) had held, in the year 1998, that entry of vehicles from abroad, is outside the scope of Entry Tax Act and therefore not liable for payment 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 im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oubt. Even thereafter, the Sales Tax Tribunal had in subsequent orders held that transport subsidy was not includible in the taxable turnover. Such a view was held by the Tribunal till March 19, 1993. It appears that on bona-fide belief that planting and transport subsidies were not includible in the taxable turnover, the appellants had not included those amounts in their turnover and for that reason non-inclusion of these two 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 deliber....