IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 26000 of 2001(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.PLAKKATTU GRANITE INDUSTRIES, PAYYANNAM, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SALES TAX INSPECTOR, SALES TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.422830/2001 IN OP NO.26000/2001 DISMISSED: 7.1.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DT.16.5.2001 ISSUED BY BHARATH EARTH MOVER'S LTD., BANGALORE. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER RULE 4(2A) ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER DT.23.8.2001. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SALES MANAGER, BHARATH EARTH MOVER'S LTD., BANGALORE. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.26000 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The question raised is whether petitioner is liable to pay entry tax for the earth moving equipment purchased from BEML. According to the petitioner, the equipment does not answer the description of motor vehicle and therefore, entry tax is not payable. I do not think there is any need to consider this question because Division Bench of this court in THRESSIAMMA L. CHIRAYIL V. STATE OF KERALA (2007(1) KLT 303) declared the Entry Tax Act unenforceable. In the circumstances, O.P. is allowed but leaving freedom to the respondents to consider liability for petitioner's equipment after Supreme Court decides the appeal filed by the State, presently pending before it. The other questions are left open for reconsideration after Supreme Court pronounces judgment in the pending appeals. I make it clear that there is no need for the State to file appeal in this case and respondents are free to decide it afresh based on decision of the Supreme Court in the pending appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms