TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tamil Nadu, i.e., to Raigarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner/ assessee then filed a return and was issued a pre-assessment notice in respect of the goods purchased by him from the T.N.E.B. and which goods were despatched outside the State. The assessee took an objection that the goods were exempted under the notification dated November 1, 1982 bearing G.O. Ps. No. 1215, under which a blanket exemption was granted in respect of the tax payable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short "the TNGST Act") on all sales of goods effected by the T.N.E.B. and its branches in the State of Tamil Nadu under section 17(1) of the TNGST Act. This plea was not accepted by the assessing officer, who, finding that the goods we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on May 30, 1997. The matter had died its logical death. 4.. Thereafter, however, the petitioner filed two original petitions before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Special Tribunal"). By the first petition, he challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which he had failed to challenge and had allowed to reach its finality. By the second original petition, he challenged the assessment made in pursuance of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. In his petitions, the petitioner mainly relied on the Supreme Court judgment reported in [1999] 114 STC 1; (1998) 5 SCC 349 (Shanmuga Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu), which according to him was supporting his contention that he was not liable to pay any t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that the petitioner had even made the payment of the tax as was found due against him. The Special Tribunal also recorded a finding that there could be a liability under section 7-A of the TNGST Act and that the Appellate Tribunal had confirmed the view of the appellate authority as well as the assessing authority that section 7-A(1)(c) was applicable to the facts of the case. In that view also, the Special Tribunal dismissed the petitions. The present two writ petitions are filed as against the said order of the Special Tribunal. 7.. Mr. Chopda, learned counsel for the petitioner, very persuasively pointed out that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shanmuga Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu [1999] 114 STC 1; (1998) 5 SCC 349 referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed view that the Special Tribunal was also right in taking that view. 9.. In so far as the second question is concerned, since we have affirmed the view taken by the Special Tribunal in respect of the proceedings having attained finality, we need not go into the further question. But, before closing we may only point out that even the subsequent judgment of the apex Court does not deal with the question under section 7-A(1)(c) and is applicable to the declared goods like iron scrap and in the present case, there is a finding of fact that the goods purchased by the petitioner were not iron scrap but machinery covered under item 41-D of the First Schedule. We would not go beyond this as it is not really a controversy pending before us. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
