[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S Ar.A.S.Auto (P) Ltd vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 20 January, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2026:MHC:221
WP Nos. 23405 and 23406 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WP Nos. 23405 and 23406 of 2001
AND
WPMP Nos. 34532 and 34530 of 2001
M/s AR.A.S.AUTO (P) LTD.,
rep by its Director R.Kanagasabai
Melur Road ..Petitioner in
Uthankudi W.P.No.23405 of 2001
Madurai 625 107
M/s AR.A.S.AUTO (P) LTD.,
rep by its Director R.Kanagasabai ..Petitioner in
38, T.P.K.Road W.P.No.23406 of 2001
Madurai 625 001
Vs
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep by its Secretary,
Commercial Tax Department, Fort. St. George,
Chennai 600 001
2. The Commercial Tax Officer
Nethaji Road Assessment Circle Madurai
..Respondent in both
W.P.’s
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:04:17 pm )
WP Nos. 23405 and 23406 of 2001
Common prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of
the first respondent pertaining to Item Nos.2 and 3 of Notification
No.II(2)/CT/11(1-2)/99 published vide G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 12th January 1999 in
exercise of powers conferred under sections 3 and 4 of the Tamilnadu Tax on
Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 and quash the same insofar
it imposes entry tax higher than the sales tax under the Tamilnadu General Sales
Tax Act, 1959 on the value of the cars and tractors imported by the petitioner
from outside the State of Tamilnadu as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301,
303(1) and 304(a) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the second
respondent herein to refund to the petitioner the amount of entry tax collected
from the petitioner in excess of the equivalent sales tax and remaining with the
second respondent after adjustment of sales tax.
In both W.P.’s
For Petitioner(s): Mrs.R.Hemalatha
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)
Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents
fairly accedes to the position that the issue involved in these Writ Petitions
relating to the levy of entry tax at a higher rate than sales tax under the Tamil
Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the value of vehicles imported from
outside the State of Tamil Nadu is covered by a decision of this Court in
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:04:17 pm )
WP Nos. 23405 and 23406 of 2001
Hindustan Motors Ltd. V. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P.Nos.1656 of 1996 etc.
Batch dated 28.03.2024), wherein the first Bench of this Court held that the
revenue is not entitled to charge entry tax on the vehicles or the goods
imported from outside the State, more than the sales tax/VAT levied on the
goods manufactured within the State and directed the petitioners therein to
apply for refund.
2. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision reads as follows:
3. The substratum of the petitioners' contention is that there is a
disparity in the entry tax on the goods imported from the other States
and the sales tax/VAT levied on the goods manufactured within the
State. The same is impermissible. If the entry tax is more than the
sales tax leviable on the local product, then the petitioners are
entitled for refund of the excess entry tax paid. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the
case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana [AIR 2016 SC
5617 :: (2017) 12 SCC 1] and three Division Bench judgments of
this Court in Commercial Tax Officer, Peelamedu South Assessment
Circle v. Coimbatore Auto Carage (P) Ltd. [{2011) 45 VST 69
(Mad.), Khivraj Motors Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Fast Track Assessment Circle III, Chennai [W.A.Nos.3201 to 3204
of 2004 dated 04.02.2010] and State of Tamil Nadu v. Ganesh
Automobiles [(2004) 134 STC 272 (Mad.)].
4. In most of the writ petitions, the vehicles are cars and in
W.P.No.139 of 2001, the vehicle is a tractor, in W.P.No.7605 of
2006, the goods involved are being used for conversion of CTD Bars
and in W.P.No.26712 of 2008, the vehicle is JCB.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General fairly concedes that in
view of the judgments referred to above, the Revenue would not be
entitled to charge entry tax more than the sales tax.
6. In light of the above, it is held that the respondents are not
entitled to charge entry tax on the vehicles or the goods referred to
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:04:17 pm )
WP Nos. 23405 and 23406 of 2001
in the writ petitions imported from outside the State more than the
sales tax/ VAT levied on the goods manufactured within the State.
7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
for refund of the amount pursuant to the excess entry tax paid .
8. It is submitted that in some of the matters in the assessment orders
the excess entry tax paid is also quantified. However, the Assessing
Officer has forfeited the same. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners would be entitled for the
refund of the amount. The concept of unjust enrichment as is
applicable under the Central Excise Act, 1944, would not be
applicable under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles
into the Local Areas Act, 1990. The provision similar to Section
11(b) of the Central Excise Act does not exist under the Act of 1990.
9. The learned Additional Advocate General relies upon the
observation of the Apex Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Limited
vs. State of Haryana, supra.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same
was not an issue in the said petitions, however, only a passing
reference has been made. Even the obiter dictum of the Apex Court
is binding on this Court. The judgment of the Apex Court in case of
Jindal Stainless Limited (supra) is also upon interpreting the
provisions of the Haryana Local Entry Tax and similar other
provisions.
11. In light of the above, we pass the following order:
The petitioners may apply to the concerned authority for refund of
the difference in the excess amount between the entry tax paid and
the local sales tax leviable. The authority concerned shall consider
the case put forth by the petitioners and take a decision on the
application of the petitioners for refund of the amount, preferably
within three months from the date the petitioners file the application.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:04:17 pm )
WP Nos. 23405 and 23406 of 2001
3. In light of the same, the impugned orders of assessment passed under
the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Into Local
Areas Act, 1990 are quashed and these Writ Petitions are allowed.
4. The petitioners may apply to the concerned authority for refund of the
difference of the excess amount between the entry tax paid and the local sales
tax paid and the authority concerned shall consider the case put forth by the
petitioners and take a decision on the application of the petitioners for refund
of the amount, expeditiously. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
(A.S.M.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.)
20-01-2026
Index: Yes/No
speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
sl
To
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep by its Secretary,
Commercial Tax Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai 600 001
2. The Commercial Tax Officer
Nethaji Road Assessment Circle Madurai
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:04:17 pm )
WP Nos. 23405 and 23406 of 2001
DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.
AND
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J.
sl
WP Nos. 23405 and 23406 of 2001
AND
WPMP Nos. 34532 and 34530 of 2001
20-01-2026
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/01/2026 04:04:17 pm )
