Madras High Court
M/S. Prp Exports vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 September, 2021
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch
M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008, 7517 to 7528 of 2011 & 2201 to
2206 of 2008
and
M.P(MD).Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1& 1 of 2008
(Through Video Conference)
W.P.(MD)Nos.2192 of 2008:
M/s. PRP Exports,
Keelavalavu Village, Melur Taluk,
Madurai District, rep. by its
Managing Partner .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu.
Represented by the Secretary,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600005.
2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Melur Assessment Circle,
Melur.
______________
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch
M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu
3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector,
Unit office, Sivagangai Road,
Melur, Madurai District. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents and/or their
subordinates to register the Petitioner's vehicle purchased under invoice
No.EX/70253, dated 23.02.2008, Chassis No.1377226321, Engine No.
9433-096695 without collecting any Entry Tax under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act,
1990.
In all cases:
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Veera Pandian
for Mr.Sri Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sureshkumar
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue raised in these batch of cases is one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
______________ Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu
2.That, in some of the writ petitions, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990, are under challenge. In some of the cases, the consequential orders passed by the respondents are under challenge or some mandamus have been sought for.
3.When these cases are taken up for hearing Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, in all these cases, has submitted that, the issue raised in these batch of cases are covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala and Others vs. Fr.William Fernandez etc., reported in 2017 SCC online SC 1291. The said submission is not controverted by the learned counsel, Mr.V.Veera Pandian, appearing for the petitioners also.
4.Infact, some of the cases of similar nature had come up for hearing before me, in W.P.(MD)Nos.10 and 11 of 2012, where I passed ______________ Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu an order on 12.08.2021, and some more cases of this nature, had come up for hearing on 19.08.2021, in W.P(MD).Nos.1187 of 2007, etc., batch, where I have passed the following order:
“3.In fact, the issue as to the validity of the said Act had also been subject matter in various writ petitions and the matter had gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, where it was given a quietus in a reported decision in the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. Fr.William Fernandez etc., reported in 2017 SCC online SC 1291.
4.Following the same, similar such writ petitions which were subsequently filed and pending before this Court were disposed of by this Court, one such writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 12.08.2021 in W.P.(MD)Nos.10 & 11 of 2012 in the matter of M/s.
Sri Aiswarya Rock Export Vs. The State represented by the Secretary and others, where I have passed the following order:
“2.When the case is taken up for hearing, Mr.V.Veerapandian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the issue raised in these writ petitions had already been raised in a ______________ Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu batch of cases and ultimately, the matter has gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The issue has been settled in State of Kerala and others Vs. Fr.William Fernandez etc., reported in 2017 SCC online SC 1291. Following the same, number of writ petitions similar to that of the present writ petitions have been dismissed at various dates and one such order in this regard had been passed by the learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos. 7144 to 7149 of 2008 etc., batch in the matter of M/s.PRP Exports Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020-2-Writ L.R. 815, and the same has been placed before this Court and relying upon the same, learned Counsel submits that similar order can be passed in these writ petitions also.
3.The said position has not been controverted. Hence, the learned Government Advocate also seeks dismissal of these writ petitions, following the earlier order.
4.I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels on either side and I have perused the materials placed before this Court.
5.In the said order, dated 03.11.2020, the learned Judge has passed the following order:
“These writ petitions are filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the ______________ Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu respondents their men, agents, subordinates from levying and collecting Entry Tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 from the petitioner for registering their respective vehicles as per the respective invoices mentioned in the petition.
2.The goods/vehicles, which are the subject matter of these Writ Petitions, were imported by the respective petitioners from abroad. According to the respective petitioners, the levy of entry tax on the said goods/vehicles under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act 1990, is ultravires to the Constitution of India and is null and void and therefore, the consequential demand is also null and void.
3.The issues raised in these Writ Petitions have been considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and others vs Fr.William Fernandez etc., reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1291, and the Honourable Supreme Court had upheld the levy of entry tax on goods imported from any place outside the territories of India into a local area for consumption, use or sale.
4.This Court, in a batch of Writ Petitions involving the same issue, also followed the ______________ Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu aforesaid decision of Honourable Supreme Court and dismissed the Writ Petitions on 01.03.2019 filed by similarly placed petitioners in W.P.(MD)No. 4837 of 2006 batch. Therefore, these Writ Petitions will also have to be necessarily dismissed.
Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
6.Since the issue raised in those writ petitions is similar to that of the present writ petitions, these writ petitions should also face the same fate and accordingly, they have to be dismissed and hence, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
5.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that, since the issue has already been decided, following the Supreme Court Judgment referred to above and all those writ petitions either seeking for a Writ of Declaration or for a Writ of Mandamus, since has already been dismissed at various point of time and one such order has been passed by this Court on 12.08.2021 in the aforesaid case, these cases also can be disposed of in the same line, he contended.
______________ Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu
6.The said position is reiterated by the learned Government Counsel in all these cases.
7.In view of the above, since writ petitions similar to that of the present batch of cases had already been disposed of by a recent order of this Court dated 12.08.2021 following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fr.William case (cited supra), following the same, there shall be a similar order in these writ petitions, where all these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
5.In view of the number of orders as quoted above had been passed by this Court, and the issue raised in these petitions are covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited above, in State of Kerala and Others vs. Fr.William Fernandez, etc., all these writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms, as they are liable to be dismissed, accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected ______________ Page No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.09.2021 Index : Yes/No internet :Yes PJL Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600005.
2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Melur Assessment Circle, Melur.
3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Unit office, Sivagangai Road, Melur, Madurai District.
______________ Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P(MD).Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008 batch M/s.PRP Exports v. The State of Tamil Nadu R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
PJL W.P.(MD)Nos.2192 to 2199 of 2008, 7517 to 7528 of 2011 & 2201 to 2206 of 2008 20.09.2021 ______________ Page No.10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/