Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2006 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (10) TMI 384 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Concessional rate of tax - declarations on form XVII for turnover - engaged in a process or manufacture - default on the part of purchasing dealer - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Section 3(3) levies concessional rate of three per cent on the sale of industrial raw materials to a manufacturing dealer for use in the manufacture of goods, except in the manufacture of alcohols and other goods mentioned therein. it is seen that concessional rate is subject to the production of Form XVII by the selling dealer obtained by him from the manufacturing dealer as prescribed in Rule 22. The concessional rate is not admissible for the sales of high speed diesel oil, light diesel oil and molasses to the manufacturer. It is not the case of the Revenue that the seller has produced a false bill, vouchers, declaration, certificate or other document with a view to support or makes any claim that the transaction is not liable to be taxed or liable to be taxed at a lower rate. We fail to appreciate as to how Section 10(3) of the Act would be applicable to the facts of the present case. In fact, the assessing officer has referred to Section 12(3)(b) of the Act while imposing penalty and there is no reference to Section 10(3) of the Act. In the circumstances, it is impossible to agree with the view of the learned single Judge that the law laid down by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Madras Petro Chem Ltd.[1991 (7) TMI 343 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is no longer good law. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. In Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., [2002 (12) TMI 564 - SUPREME COURT], held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and the court must consider the pros and cons of the case and then may interfere if it comes to the conclusion that the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. Thus, the issue involved is covered by several judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court, and it has been consistently held that for the contravention of condition of Form XVII, tax and penalty could be imposed only against the purchasing dealer and not against the seller, as per Section 3(3) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the assessing authority is clearly without jurisdiction. In the result, it is not possible to sustain the order passed by the learned single Judge and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition as well as the writ appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. is closed.
|