TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent in CST.690404/2007-08, dated 4.7.2012, seeking to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to consider the representation for rectification. 4. Short facts pleaded by the petitioner are as follows: (a) The petitioner-Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, is a manufacturer of various petroleum products like Bitumen, Carbon Black Feed Stock (CBFS), CRMB, Hexane, Slack Wax, Wax, etc. and registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (for short, 'the TNVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act (for short, 'the CST Act') under the jurisdiction of the respondent. (b) They filed their Returns and the CST Assessment for 2007-08 was completed and an order dated 5.3.2012 was passed by the responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eed Stock (CBFS), CRMB, Hexane, Slack Wax, Wax etc., whereas the respondent erroneously grouped the entire list of commodities under the nomenclature "Petroleum Products" and accordingly assessed the turnover to tax at 30% in the assessment order. The rate of 30% is applicable for sale of petrol and not for other petroleum products like Bitumen, Carbon Black Feed Stock (CBFS), CRMB, Hexane, Slack Wax, Wax etc. (e) As per Section 8 of the CST Act, if an inter-State sales transaction is not covered by Form-C, then the rate of tax would be equivalent to the rate of VAT applicable for the commodity in the particular State. Therefore, the respondent ought to have assessed these products individually and applied the rate of tax for each of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the excess tax paid by the petitioner at Rs.2,49,10,842/-. The respondent did not rectify the error relating to grouping of certain products as a whole under the head "Petroleum Products" and assessing the entire range of products to tax wrongly at 12.5% instead of applying the rate of tax for each of the items sold by the petitioner. (i) The petitioner received the said second revision order only on 27.7.2012. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed another representation, dated 12.7.2012 in the office of the respondent on 18.7.2012 bringing to the notice of the respondent the error relating to grouping of commodities instead of showing individual items with the respective rate of tax. The petitioner pointed out that the individual items s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner submitted that as the rate of tax adopted by the respondent-authority is inconsistent with the rate specified in the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act and the clarifications issued by the Head of Department of the respondent in respect of the applicability of rate of tax for Bitumen, Carbon Black Feed Stock (CBFS), CRMB, Hexane, all kinds of Wax, scrap and waste, etc. and particularly, when the petitioner agreed for the assessment of CBFS-LE at 12.5% as an unclassified item under Part-C of First Schedule to the TNVAT Act, the petitioner sent a letter dated 16.4.2012 to the respondent, which was followed by various reminders, last of which is dated 1.4.2013, seeking rectification of the error under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act r....