TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of the compounded rate of tax as under Section 3(4) of the Act. So long as the petitioner has the taxable turnover for the year under consideration at less than ₹ 50 lakhs and so too during the immediate previous year, the taxable turnover of that year remained at less than ₹ 50 lakhs, the mere fact of his earlier years having inter-State purchase, per se, would not go against the claim of the petitioner to have the assessment done under Section 3(4) of the Act. - Matter remanded back - Following decision of Bharani Readymades Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another [2014 (8) TMI 897 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P. No.17473 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irming the proposal. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on the decision of this Court reported in (2013) 60 VST 149 (Mds), Bharani Readymades Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another to substantiate his contention that if a dealer had made inter-state purchases in earlier years, it is not a ground to deny dealer the benefit of paying tax at compounded tax. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would fairy submit that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner will be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the respondent and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier years having inter-State purchase, per se, would not go against the claim of the petitioner to have the assessment done under Section 3(4) of the Act. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the taxable turnover in respect of the previous assessment years, viz., 2007-08 and 2008-09, even as per the assessment order dated August 3, 2011 was ₹ 37,32,644 and for 2008-09, is ₹ 44,96,930. Thus agreeing with the submission of the petitioner, there being no provision to deny the benefit of Section 3(4) of the Act, on the mere ground of the petitioner's inter-State purchase in the previous years, I do not find any legal support in the order of the second respondent denying the benefit of Section 3(4) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
