✦ Madras High Court

Shri Mangala Packs (P) Ltd v. The Commercial Tax Officer (FCA)

Writ Petition No. 27158 of 2007M JAICHANDREN WRIT2 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
M JAICHANDREN WRIT

Outcome

Allowed

In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, inview of the said order of the Division Bench of this Court made inM/S

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, in view of the said order of the Division Bench of this Court made inM/S.RDS PROJECTS LTD., Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (2007-08(13) TNCTJ). No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of2007 are closed. lanSd/Asst. Registrar/true…

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.8.2007 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.27158 of 2007 Shri Mangala Packs (P) Ltd.,represented by its Director,N.M.Rajan Prabakar,265/2, Elumalai Nagar, Narasothipatti, Salem – 636 004... Petitioner vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (FCA),Arisipalayam Circle, Salem – 636 004. .. RespondentThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent relating toits Demand in No.TIN 33692843752/2006-07, dated 20.7.2007, and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami For respondent : Mr.A.Shanmugasundarm Government AdvocateO R D E RMr.A.Shanmugasundarm, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.

2.

With the consent of the learned counsels appearing oneither side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3.

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by an order of a Division Bench of this Courtmade in M/S.RDS PROJECTS LTD., Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,(2007-08 (13) TNCTJ). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.

Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said order read as follows: "12. The above decisions would categorically show that the Apex Court has made a distinction between vehicles fitted with chains like caterpillars and military tanks and others. The excavator referred to in Bose Abraham's case (cited supra) was a motor vehicle fitted with inflated tyres and not chain plates like caterpillars or military tanks. The excavator in question in the present case is mounted on iron plates made into chain such as caterpillar vehicles or military tanks. Such an excavator is used for excavating the earth and loading in lorries and it cannot be used upon public roads, since the roads would get damaged by the chains. Theexcavator moves around only in work sites andit is not suitable or adapted for use in public roads. This position is also confirmed by the physical verification carried out by the respondent, as seen from his report extracted above. The Kerala High Court in the case of M/s.Ray Constructions Limited Vs.Intelligence Officer, Squad No.IV, Kozhikode(cited supra) while considering a similar issue has held that the excavators in question having regard to its distinguishing features from the other excavators has to be held as not motor vehicle falling under the definition of the term defined under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, not liable for entry tax. It is relevant to note that the Volvo Excavators purchased by the petitioner which is the subject matter of levy of entry tax are exactly similar to the excavators which were the subject matter in the above referred reported decision of the Kerala High Court. 13. Under the circumstances, the impugned show cause notice cannot be sustained andit is hereby set aside. The writ appeal isdisposed of accordingly. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.

Mr.A.Shanmugasundarm, the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent had not refuted the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Operative part

6.

In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, in view of the said order of the Division Bench of this Court made inM/S.RDS PROJECTS LTD., Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (2007-08(13) TNCTJ). No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of2007 are closed. lanSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo:The Commercial Tax Officer (FCA),Arisipalayam Circle, Salem – 636 004.+one cc to Mr. Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate sr no. 52378+ one cc to the Special Government Pleader (Tax) sr no. 52430JSk(CO)NM(27.08.07)W.P.No.27158 of 2007

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, inview of the said order of the Division Bench of this Court made inM/S

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 2(28).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 27158 of 2007). ← Search more judgments