Karnataka High Court
Lanco Devihalli Highways Limited vs The Chief Secretary on 26 April, 2013
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.195 OF 2013
AND
WRIT PETITION NOS.18359-360 OF 2013 (T-EYT)
BETWEEN:
LANCO DEVIHALLI HIGHWAYS LIMITED
TOLL PLAZA ADMIN BUILDING,
AMANI DODDAKERE (VILLAGE),
KASABA HOBLI, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 4,
HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE-562114,
KARNATAKA,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE,
AT: PLOT NO.4, SOFTWARE UNITS LAYOUT,
HI-TECH CITY, MADHAPUR,
HYDERABAD-500 081,
ANDHRA PRADESH,
REP. BY DR.K.P.KUMAR,
ITS ED & SPV HEAD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.Y H VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNAMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO.320, III FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
ROOM NO.24, GROUND FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA (WEST GATE),
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES (ENFORCEMENT)
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES,
ANTHARANGAE ROAD,
KOLAR-563101.
4. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
AUTHORITY OF INDIA
G-5 & 6, SECTOR 10,
DWARKA
NEW DELHI-110075. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, AGA)
******
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTICE AT ANNX-U DEMANDING ENTRY TAX OF
RS.1,77,46,329/- [ RUPEES ONE CRORE SEVENTY SEVEN
LAKH FORTY SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY NINE ONLY] AND ENTRY TAX AT 2% ON PLANT,
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT BY THE R3 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
In terms of the Infrastructure Policy 2011 and FD Notification, entry tax exemption was extended to the petitioner for a period of three years. In the absence of a notification extending the entry tax exemption beyond three years, the relief for extension of the period as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unavailable.
2. Learned Government Advocate files a memo dated 18.4.2013 enclosing copy of the endorsement stating that notice dated 10.8.2012 issued under section 21 read with Section 23 of the KTEG Act, 1979 is withdrawn, hence the relief to quash the notice Annexure-U is rendered infructuous.
3. It is needless to state that if the petitioner has made representations Annexures K, M, N, P & W for extension of time, it is for the State authorities to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law, if the petitioner is legally entitled to.
Petitions are disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL