M/S.K.P.N.Auto Wings vs. The State Of Tamilnadu

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. K.P.N Auto Wings, represented by its partner K.P.N Raajesh, filed a writ petition challenging the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. The petitioner sought a declaration that the Act was ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301, and 304(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India, and was non-compensatory and unenforceable. The challenge was based on a previous High Court finding reported in 13 VST 390, which followed a Supreme Court judgment in 145 STC 544. The respondents were the State of Tamil Nadu and the Assistant Commissioner(CT), Srirangam Assessment Circle. The tax period in dispute is not explicitly stated, nor is the specific amount of tax in dispute.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner stated that in view of a previous finding by this Court in the case of V. Krishnamurthy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (Order dated 29.1.2019 passed in W.P.No.32710 of 2005 etc.), the present petition could be dismissed. The Court reproduced Paragraph 67 of the V. Krishnamurthy judgment, which held that the Supreme Court's judgment in Fr. William Fernandez (2018) 57 GSTR 6 (SC) applied with full force to cases arising under the Tamil Nadu Act, which was pari materia to the Kerala enactment considered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had upheld the levy of entry tax on imported vehicles in that case. Therefore, the Court concluded that the prayer sought by the writ petitioners was not tenable and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990, is constitutionally valid and enforceable, as it is similar to the Kerala enactment upheld by the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990, are ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301, and 304(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India, and are non-compensatory in nature, rendering them unenforceable against the petitioner. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution and unenforceable, citing a previous High Court judgment (13 VST 390) which relied on a Supreme Court decision (145 STC 544). The petitioner essentially sought to rely on these precedents to declare the Act invalid in their case. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondents would have relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Fr. William Fernandez (2018) 57 GSTR 6 (SC) to uphold the validity of the Act.