Judgment :- Petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P1 notice proposing penalty both issued under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act. 1994, hereinafter called the “Act”. The facts leading to the impugned order of assessment and notice are as follows: Pursuant to Ext.P2 agreement with a foreigner party petitioner assembled ten chassis supplied by the foreign party in Semi Knocked Down condition (SKD) and built bus body in Kerala and exported the buses to the same party. The terms agreed between the petitioner and the foreign party as evident from Ext.P2, on which respondents also have no controversy are the following. (1) the foreign party will ship the chassis of vehicle in Semi Knocked Down condition to India which will be cleared by the petitioner from customs on which no customs duty is payable as the goods are for export after body building., (2) The petitioner at his workshop in Kerala assembles the chassis tests the same and then constructs bus body on it. (3) the bus after completion is exported by the petitioner to the foreign party at the destination instructed by the foreign party (4) for services rendered of the above nature, for 10 vehicles the petitioner was paid under Ext.P7 purchase order issued by the foreign party a total US $39.000; which is at the rate of $900 per vehicle for unloading of chassis, assembling, testing and for delivery and at the rate of $3000 per vehicle for body building, when the first respondent proposed to levy entry tax on the value of chassis imported by the petitioner the petitioner raised objections stating that there is no purchase of vehicle chassis by the petitioner and in any case the import of vehicle chassis in SKD condition was neither “used”. “sold” nor consumed in Kerala and therefore entry tax is not attracted. However, the first respondent overruled the objections and completed assessment vide Ext.P1, Besides the assessment and demand of entry tax on the value of chassis imported, the first respondent has proposed penalty for evasion of entry tax under Section 15(1) of the Act vide Ext.P11. Both Exts.P1 and P11 are under challenge in this WPC. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Raju Joseph Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. Both Exts.P1 and P11 are under challenge in this WPC. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Raju Joseph Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. In the normal course, this Court should have left the challenge against the assessment to be decided in statutory appeal and penalty proposed to be adjudicated by the officer and left for decision again in appeal by the statutory authority. However, counsel for the petitioner contended that the jurisdiction of the first respondent to make assessment under the Act particularly after the authoritative pronouncement by this Court in the decision reported in FR. William Fernandez v. State of Kerala. (1990) 1 KLT 256 itself is under challenge and so much so this is one of the situations approved by the Supreme Court in the decision in Whirlpool Corporation’s Case (1998) 8 SCC 1 warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226 overlooking the statutory remedies. Apart from this. I feel this is a fit case where this Court should interfere because if the petitioner is directed to pursue the statutory remedies against the killer dose of tax and penalty and wait for the result for continued business the same will destroy the petitioner’s business as no foreign party is willing to wait for protracted litigation in India to be over to continue the business. Above all I feel the impugned proceedings are an antithesis of the liberalized policies of the Govt. to promote international trade and commerce. Therefore I am constrained to decide the case on merits and counsel appearing on both sides were heard on all aspects of the case. 3. Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions to substantiate that impugned proceedings are not sustainable (1) Chassis of motor vehicle imported in Semi Knocked Down condition as a kit for assembling does not attract entry tax under Entry tax under Entry 22 of the Schedule to the Act, as the entry covers only fully built or assembled “chassis of motor vehicle” and not unassembled parts. (2) No entry tax is payable in respect of imported motor vehicle by virtue of the Division Bench decision of the Court in (1998) 1 KLT 256. (3) Since the chassis imported in SKD condition is not for “consumption, use or sale within any local area” no tax is attracted under Section 3(1) of the Act. 4. (2) No entry tax is payable in respect of imported motor vehicle by virtue of the Division Bench decision of the Court in (1998) 1 KLT 256. (3) Since the chassis imported in SKD condition is not for “consumption, use or sale within any local area” no tax is attracted under Section 3(1) of the Act. 4. The Special Government Pleader on the other hand contended that chassis is SKD condition imported answers the description of “chassis of motor vehicle” under Entry 22 of the Schedule to the Act and so much so the same attracts entry tax. So far as the decision of this Court above referred is concerned, he submitted that Supreme Court has granted stay against the said decision. With regard to the last contention of the petitioner, the submission of Special Government Pleader is that by building bus body on the chassis, the chassis is consumed in the manufacture of bus and therefore, according to him the requirement of Section 3(1) of the Act is satisfied to attract entry tax. 5. I do not think the contention raised by the petitioner that motor vehicle chassis brought in SKD condition does not answer the description of “chassis of motor vehicle” can be accepted. The chassis are brought in SKD condition only for easy packing and for reducing cost of transportation. What is brought is whole chassis in unassembled form and if the technical argument raised by the petitioner is accepted then anybody can remove a few parts from a vehicle chassis and bring it to Kerala, avoiding entry tax. Moreover I find entry 23 which came into effect from 1.4.2003 provides for entry tax on body built on chassis of motor vehicles including components parts, accessories, kits or otherwise. In other words, after the said amendment entries 22 and 23 provide for entry tax on chassis of motor vehicle, body built on chassis of motor vehicles including components, parts, accessories, kits or, otherwise. In fact entry tax was first introduced on motor vehicles by providing entry 1(a) of the Schedule to the Act. Item 22 and 23 of the Schedule to the Act were introduced to levy tax on motor vehicle chassis, body built on chassis, and even parts end accessories of motor vehicles. In fact entry tax was first introduced on motor vehicles by providing entry 1(a) of the Schedule to the Act. Item 22 and 23 of the Schedule to the Act were introduced to levy tax on motor vehicle chassis, body built on chassis, and even parts end accessories of motor vehicles. In fact entries 1(a), 22 and 23 of the Schedule to the Act cover everything pertaining to a motor vehicle and nothing of it is left out of the tax net. Therefore if the argument of the petitioner that chassis in SKD will not come under entries 22 and 23 of the Schedule to the Act is accepted, the same will defeat the very object of legislation that is to impose entry tax on motor vehicles and all parts and accessories including chassis and motor body built on chassis. Thereafter this contention of the petitioner is only to be rejected and I do so. 6. I do not think there is any need to decide the issue whether the imported chassis attracts entry tax as the matter is at present pending before the supreme Court. However, even if the decision of this Court is reversed and the Supreme Court holds that entry tax is payable in respect of imported motor vehicles falling under item 1(a) of the Schedule to the Act. I do not think the same will go against the petitioner in this case because of my following decision on the third issue. Therefore petitioner’s argument based on the decision of this Court above referred and more important allegation of violation of Art, 286(1) (b) of the Constitution is left open to wait for decision by the Supreme Court. 7. The admitted facts are that the foreign party shipped the vehicle chassis in SKD condition which was taken delivery by the petitioner, assembled and tested by them before building body on it. The chassis after body building is exported in the form of Bus in terms of foreign party’s order. The question therefore is whether the assembling of chassis, building of bus body and export of the Bus attracts entry tax on the import of chassis under Section 3(1) of the Act. Section 3(1) of the Act for easy reference is given below: 3. The question therefore is whether the assembling of chassis, building of bus body and export of the Bus attracts entry tax on the import of chassis under Section 3(1) of the Act. Section 3(1) of the Act for easy reference is given below: 3. Levy of Tax, (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the entry of any goods into any local area for consumption, use or sale therein. (The tax on such goods shall be at such rate or rates as may be fixed by government by notification, on the purchase value of goods not exceeding the tax payable for the goods as per the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. 1063). From the above provision it is clear that liability to entry tax is attracted only if the item imported is for consumption, use or sale in the local area” to which it is imported. It is conceded that petitioner was not allowed to use the chassis nor can it be used as such for any purpose. All what the petitioner did was to assemble the chassis from the SKD kit supplied by the foreign party, built the body and exported the full Bus. All through chassis belonged to the foreign party and others was no purchase or sale of chassis by the petitioner. Since there was no use or sale of the imported chassis the remaining question therefore to be considered is whether there was “consumption” of chassis by the petitioner to attract liability under Section 3(1) of the Act. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that building bus body on the chassis does not involve and “consumption” of chassis and so much so there cannot be any liability. On the other hand. Special Government Pleader contended that once bus body is built, the chassis ceases to exist and therefore there is “consumption” attracting liability under the charging section. “Consumption” of course is not a term defined under the Act. Therefore I do not think any technical meaning can be assigned to it. The meaning of word “consumption” as contained in the dictionary is “using up, destruction, waste. Etc. Probably even industrial raw materials or components “imported” by manufacturers for manufacture of other goods may attract entry tax. “Consumption” of course is not a term defined under the Act. Therefore I do not think any technical meaning can be assigned to it. The meaning of word “consumption” as contained in the dictionary is “using up, destruction, waste. Etc. Probably even industrial raw materials or components “imported” by manufacturers for manufacture of other goods may attract entry tax. However, in this case, petitioner is only building bus body on the chassis supplied by the foreign party and all through the chassis belonged to the foreign party. By construction of bus body, chassis does not get itself transformed to anything else, but forms an integral part of the bus. Therefore whatever be the meaning the word “consumption” may admit in the context in which it is used in Section 3(1) of the Act. It cannot be said that petitioner has “consumed” the vehicle chassis belonging to the foreign party by building bus body on it in terms of work order. Moreover entries 1(a). 22 and 23 of the Schedule to the Act when taken together would go to show that entry tax on these items is attracted for “use” by the importer, that is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore motor vehicle. It’s chassis or body apparently attracts tax when imported for “use” or “sale” as no “consumption” of it is contemplated, nor is it capable of consumption. Therefore Ext.P1 assessment of entry tax on the import of chassis for export to the owner after building bus body is totally untenable. Consequently the penalty proposed vide Ext.P11 is also not tenable. Accordingly Exts. P1 and P11 are quashed and respondents are prohibited from imposing any entry tax on similar transactions by the petitioner in future. However. I make it clear that respondents are entitled to consider petitioner a liability for purchase tax or sales tax in respect of bus body building work and if there is any case for levy of tax under the KGST Act. It is open to them to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the KGST Act and Rules. W.P. is allowed is above.