Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1777 (RAJ)

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (VAT & IT), Commercial Taxes

2016-12-07

J.K.RANKA

body2016
ORDER : J.K. Ranka, J. 1. The instant petition is directed against order dt 7.2.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 1555/2006/Jaipur, whereby the appeal of appellant has partly been allowed. 2. The brief facts noticed for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is a Corporation which is distributing power (electricity) and it was intending to purchase certain items and wanted to ascertain as to whether the 20 items, which were referred to in the application, fall within the ambit of Entry Tax or not. The Additional Commissioner, taking up the case of assessee u/s. 40 of the RST Act took into consideration various facts and in particular entry 22 and held that out of the 20 items, 12 does not fall within the ambit of Entry Tax, however, held that remaining 8 items does fall within the purview of Entry Tax. 3. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Tax Board, who also went into the issue and after taking into consideration the arguments held that insofar as Resuscitator is concerned, it is also outside the purview of Entry Tax, however, for the remaining 7 items held that they were covered by the Entry Tax and appropriate rate would be applicable on such items, if the said items are brought into the State of Rajasthan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even the liability of Entry Tax per se is illegal and the AO or the Revenue could not levy Entry Tax as it is violative of Article 304(a) & (b) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively contended that the 7 items cannot be covered in entry 22 as the items are either parts or similar in nature and all these parts are by & large forming part of the material which is being used by the petitioner in installation of Poles and Wires etc. and the reasoning given by the Tax Board is required to be interfered with. and the reasoning given by the Tax Board is required to be interfered with. Learned counsel also supported with the dictionary meaning of Earthing Chain, Insulated mats, SMS Moulded Junction Box, GSS Wire & Accessories, Earthing set (Counterpoise type & Pipe type), Lightning Arrestor, and Meter Box, and to contend that they are of day to day use of equipment and thus contended that question of Entry Tax on these remaining items does not arise and contended that questions of law arise out of the order of Tax Board. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that this court has upheld the levy of Entry Tax and relied on a judgment of Division Bench in the case of M/s. Harit Polytech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Others, [D.B. CWP 8745/2014, decided on 1.12.2014], where the Division Bench of this court has elaborately considered and upheld that Entry Tax is valid. Learned counsel also pointed that the Apex court has recently upheld the judgment of this court in the case of M/s. Harit Polytech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in a bunch of cases namely, Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Another v. State of Haryana & Others, [Civil Appeal No. 3453/2002, and other connected matters, decided on 11.11.2016], and thus contended that insofar as the legal question raised by the assessee is concerned, does not survive. 6. Insofar as the remaining items are concerned, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Additional Commissioner initially after elaborate discussion and thereafter the Tax Board, after taking into consideration the facts and material available on record, has already held that 13 items are out of purview of the Entry Tax and for the other remaining items, after going through the material has held that they fall within the purview of Entry Tax and these are findings of fact, and no question of law can be said to arise and supported the order of Tax Board. 7. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material and in my view insofar as the legal issue whether Entry Tax is applicable or not, the controversy stands set at rest by the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of M/s. Harit Polytech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also by the latest judgment of Apex court in bunch of cases, namely Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Another (supra), where the Apex court has upheld the validity of Entry Tax by respective state governments. Therefore, insofar as the legal issue is concerned, it is answered against the petitioner. 8. Insofar as the remaining 7 items referred to hereinabove are concerned, though the learned counsel for assessee has tried to justify that they are also parts of the material which is being used by the petitioner in the Poles and Wires etc., but the Tax Board, after elaborate discussion, has taken into consideration and has held that insofar as the remaining 7 items are concerned, they fall within the purview of entry 22, and thus within the purview of Entry Tax and in my view both the Tax Board as well as Additional Commissioner have found as a finding of fact and in the limited jurisdiction of revision petition the question of fact cannot be considered or interfered with, it being essentially a finding of fact. 9. No questions of law can be said to arise out of the order of Tax Board. The petition being devoid of any merits, is dismissed.