AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The writ petition in W.P. No. 18730 of 2003 is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for
the records on the file of the second respondent herein in his order in O.P. No. 930 of 2003 dated 30.4.2003, quash the same and direct the first
respondent to declare that Sl. No. 9 of Eleventh Schedule introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002, is ab intio
void and ultra vires Articles 14, 265, 286, 301, 304(a) of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition in W.P. No. 18731 of 2003 is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the
second respondent herein in his order in O.P. No. 931 of 2003 dated 30.4.2003, quash the same and direct the first respondent to declare that Sl.
No. 8 of Part G to the First Schedule introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 2002 as it stood between 27.3.2002 to 30.6.2002, is ab intio void
and ultra vires Articles 14, 265, 286, 301, 304(a) of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition in W.P. No. 24333 of 2003 is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent
in its proceedings in O.P. Nos. 822 of 2002 dated 30.4.2003 and quash the same.
The writ petition in W.P. No. 24691 of 2003 is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the
impugned common order of the third respondent dated 30.4.2003 passed in O.P. No. 1115 of 2002, quash the same and declare that the Entry 9
of Eleventh Schedule to the said Act with effect from 1.7.2002 prescribing 20% rate of sales tax on sales of imported biscuits and chocalates and
sold in Chennai are violative of Articles 14, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India and therefore void and unenforceable.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel on either side that in identical set of facts, this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 17424 of
2004 etc., upheld the levy of 20% sales tax on imported goods as against the levy of 12% sales tax for the goods manufactured in India. This
Court also rejected the contention that such higher rate of tax on imported goods amounts to impeding the trade and commerce. In the said
judgment this Court also rejected the contention that such levy requires the assent of the President under Article 304(b) of the Constitution of
India. The issue involved in the present writ petitions is also one and the same. Hence following the above Division Bench Judgment, these writ
petitions may also be disposed of.
Recording the statement of the Counsel on either side the writ petitions are dismissed by following the Division Bench judgment of this Court
made in W.P. Nos. 17424 of 2004 etc., dated 7.9.2007. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps are also dismissed. No costs.