TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lone, we remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority to consider the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the clarification letter dated 21.11.2000 for those relevant assessment years and whether the Assessing Authority should follow its own subsequent assessment order in respect of the very same item in relation to the petitioner in T.C.No.643 of 2006 for the assessment year 1999-2000. - Tax Case (Revision) Nos.642, 643 and 646 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2011 - F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla And N. Kirubakaran,JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr. N. Murali For the Respondent : Mr. K. Radhakrishnan Govt. Advocate (Taxes) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla,J.) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Taxes relating to 'star anise seeds', as per which, the same has to be covered by residual Entry 67 of Part D. However, on 21.11.2000, different clarification letter came to be issued in respect of an assessee by name M/s.Shobhakant Co., by which, it was clarified as under: Star anise are taxable at 4% under Item 2 of Part B of First Schedule to the Act 1959, as it will fall under the Broaden group of anise seeds . 5. Based on the said clarification letter, the petitioners also approached the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by its petition dated 27.2.2001. Based on the said petition, by letter dated 13.3.2001 addressed to the Commercial Tax Officer, the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the relevant assessment year, the clarification letter dated 21.11.2000/13.3.2001 should be applied for fixing the rate of tax. 7. The learned counsel would contend that since for the subsequent year, namely, 1999-2000 in respect of one of the petitioners, namely, the petitioner in T.C.No.643 of 2006, the Assessing Authority has chosen to follow the clarification letter dated 13.03.2001 and assessed the tax at the rate of 4% under Entry 2 of Part B of I Schedule, the order of the Tribunal in fixing the rate of tax at 8% treating the very same item as 'country drugs' would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and will create unnecessary complications in applying the rate of tax. 8. The learned Government Advocate, on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question would be 'whether the said clarification would hold good even for the period prior to the date of clarification, namely, 21.11.2000'. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the conclusion of the Tribunal in holding that 'star anise seeds' is a 'country drug' falling under item 28-A(iii) if allowed to stand, the same would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners, inasmuch as such an order of the Tribunal as between the petitioners and the respondent authorities would be binding even in supersession of clarification letter dated 21.11.2000 of the Commissioner of Commercial Tax. Such a contention also sounds good. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we feel that it will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
