TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay tax under the TNVAT Act on the sales or purchases. Held that: - it would be improper to interdict the proceedings at the very threshold, namely, at the stage of show cause notice. Admittedly, the respondent has jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notices and what has now been contested by the petitioners is that they have no power to levy purchase tax. This issue involves adjudication of disputed questions of facts and therefore, the petitioners have to necessarily submit their objections to the impugned notices. The writ petitions are held to be premature and not maintainable - petition dismissed. - W. P. No. 22375 to 22378 of 2017, W. M. P. Nos. 23454 to 23461 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f sale does not exceed ₹ 300 Crores in a year. Under Commodity Code 2052 of the TNVAT Act, on the sale of goods not specified in any of the Schedules tax is leviable at the rate of 5%. On a scrutiny of Form WW filed by the petitioners for the relevant years, it is stated that the petitioners had effected purchases of Turmeric from Agriculturists and from other dealers without payment of tax. A portion of the goods were transferred under consignment sale and stock transfer interstate and the petitioners had not paid purchase tax as per Section 12 in respect of the goods purchase from local dealers and sent on stock transfer. Therefore, the respondent proposed to levy purchase tax for such transaction and directed the petitioners to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 959 and submitted that the same defines tax to mean and includes a sales tax, purchase tax, re-sale tax or surcharge, as the case may be and when this Section remains the same, the proposed levy of purchase tax in terms of Section 12 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is highly arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 8. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners who deal with goods specified under the Fourth Schedule to the Act shall not be liable to pay any tax under the Act and the word any tax used in Section 12 of the Act include Purchase Tax . Further, it is contended that the impugned notices proposing to levy purchase tax is contrary to the circular issued by the Department dated 24.12.1999 and the circular holds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CST Act. They have further stated that as there is conditional exemption in the state, if it is sold outside the state, automatically it will be exempted. Hence the levy of purchase tax in the state is against the CST Act as the sales comes under CST Act and no such provision is available to levy the tax under CST Act. 10. Further, it is submitted that the respondent has not passed any assessment order and as the petitioner has approached this Court by way of these writ petitions challenging show cause notices, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners have wrongly understood that the tax is proposed for stock transfer made under CST Act. The Turmeric is taxable item falls under I schedule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Hotel Shri Kannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (referred supra). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Division Bench disposed of the cases by issuing the directions as extracted hereunder: Since the dealers, in these batch of cases, except a few, who, unfortunately, failed to place reliance on the Circular D.Dis.Acts Cell II/75893/99, dated December 24, 1999, as amended by the clarification No.91/2000, D.Dis.Acts Cell II/52300/2000, dated October 4, 2000, approached this Court challenging the show cause notices, taking into consideration the scope of section 7A of the Act referred to above, suffice it to pass the following order: 1.The assessment orders passed without reference to the Circular D.Dis.Acts Cell II/75893/99, dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Bench which has directed the dealers to submit their objections. Therefore, in my considered view, it would be improper to interdict the proceedings at the very threshold, namely, at the stage of show cause notice. Admittedly, the respondent has jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notices and what has now been contested by the petitioners is that they have no power to levy purchase tax. This issue involves adjudication of disputed questions of facts and therefore, the petitioners have to necessarily submit their objections to the impugned notices. The petitioners are free to raise all contentions including the effect of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Hotel Shri Kannan Vs. State of Tamil Nad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
