M/S.Maris Associates PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Tamilnadu
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Maris Associates Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to quash proceedings dated January 23, 2020, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2001. They also sought a direction for de novo consideration in light of a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jindal. The impugned proceedings relate to assessment year 2003-04. The respondents are the State of Tamil Nadu and the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The procedural history involves the petitioner challenging the assessment order directly before the High Court via a writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the interpretation of Section 3 read with Section 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001, as clarified by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Fr. William Fernandez, is that goods entering a local area from any place outside the local area or outside the State are subject to entry tax. The Court found that the petitioner's attempt to limit the scope of the definition was impermissible. Consequently, the Court found that nothing further survived for adjudication in the writ petition on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the assessment proceedings. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority within 30 days of receiving the order. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner making the mandatory pre-deposit as contemplated under the Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) are without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2001, specifically concerning the interpretation of Section 3 read with Section 2(d) of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act. They sought reconsideration based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Jindal. Revenue's contention: The revenue relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Kerala Vs. Fr. William Fernandez etc. etc. to support the interpretation of the Act. The judgment cited by the revenue clarifies that goods entering a local area from any place outside the local area or outside the State are chargeable with entry tax, and 'foreign territory' includes places outside the State. The Court noted that the petitioner was attempting to introduce words of limitation into the definition clause, which is impermissible in statutory interpretation.
Sections Cited
Section 3, Section 2(d), Section 4
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 2.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others Vs. Fr. William Fernandez etc. etc. [2018 (57) GSTR 6X (SC) : 2017 SCC Online SC 1291], has considered the issue and answered as follows:- 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ''58.The plain and literal construction when put to Section 3 read with Section 2(d) clearly means that goods entering into local area from any place outside the local area or outside the State are to be charged with entry tax. Foreign territory would be a place which is not only outside the local area but also outside the State. The writ petitioners are trying to introduce words of limitation in the definition clause. The interpretation which is sought to be put up is that both the phrases be read as: (1) ''from any place outside that local area but within that State''; (2) any place outside the State but within India.
It is well known rule of statutory interpretation that by process of interpretation the provision cannot be re- written nor any word can be introduced. The expression ''any place'' before the words ''outside the State'' is also indicative of wide extent. The words ''any place'' cannot be limited to a place within the territory of India when no such indication is discernible from the provisions of the Act.'' 3.In view of the above, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Writ Petition. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an statutory appeal before the appellate authority and to work out the remedy available under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to file such an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within such time, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner will have to make mandatory pre-deposit as is contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 at the time of filing such an appeal. 4.This Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Assistant Registrar(CS-I) //// / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) smn2 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin - 3 Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tuticorin. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-6430[F] dated 15/02/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.KARUNAKAR, Advocate ( SR-6238[F] dated 15/02/2022 ) WP (MD) No.3922 of 2020 14.02.2022
smv(CO) TR(25.02.2022) 3P 5C 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.