BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/08/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.2423 of 2007 Tvl.Vasavi Jewellary Mart, represented by its Partner B.T.Dinesh ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Commercial Tax Officer-III(FAC) Dindigul. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the amendment brought to the Tamil Nadu Luxuries Act 1981 by Act No.24 of 2002, dated Section 2(fff) and Section 2(hha), Section 2(hhc), Section 4BB and the schedule to the act added with effect from 1st July 2002 relating to levy of Luxury Tax on gold, silver, platinum jewellery and precious stones in unconstitutional and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Karunakar ^For Respondents... Mr.D.Muruganadam Addl. Government Pleader :ORDER
The petitioner is carrying on the business of Jewellary, under the
provision of the Tamil Nadu Luxury Tax Act 1981. The petitioner filed return
for the turnover, as the goods were included to be taxable under the Act.
2.The petitioner challenged the Constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu
Luxury Tax Act, 1981, as goods could not be a luxury for the imposition of tax.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s.Godfrey Philips India Ltd., vs,
State of U.P. [(2005)2 SCC 515], has been pleased to lay down, that no luxury
tax can be imposed on the goods.
3.This court, in the case of Tvl.M.S.P.Sethuraman & Co., represented by
its Partner vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government,
Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments,Fort St. George, Chennai-
600 009 in W.P.(MD)No.1789 of 2007 and connected cases, decided on 01.12.2009,
was pleased to lay down as under:-
“6.A perusal of the order would go to show that the scope of the order of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court striking down the Amendment Act has not been fully
understood. When once the Amendment Act is struck down by the Supreme Court, it
should be property understood to mean that the amendment was never, in force in
the Statute Book. But, under the wrong impression, these impugned orders have
been passed as though the amendment was in force was for a particular period
viz., between 1.7.2002 and 28.12.2004. For these reasons, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.”
4.The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this
court referred to above.
5.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The assessment order,
imposing luxury tax for the period in dispute is ordered to be quashed. No
costs.
er