TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds which are totally irrelevant. No hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the first respondent with a direction to the first respondent to consider afresh the representation made and pass orders afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner as regards the claim as per section 3J with reference to tax paid in respect of the sales effected in favour of the petitioner - W.P. Nos. 5248, W.P. Nos. 5249 of 2010, M.P. No. 1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2010 - CHITRA VENKATARAMAN J. C. Natarajan, Senior Counsel for N. Inbarajan for the petitioner R. Tholkappian, Government Advocate (Taxes), for the respondents ORDER The petitioner in W.P.No. 5248 of 2010 seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order dated December 1, 2009 assessing the entire resale turnover of ₹ 16,45,55,487 at 16 per cent without even considering the turnover of goods sold under the name Mr. White , which was a registered trade mark to the tune of ₹ 5,09,14,039. The petitioner contends that having regard to the circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated June 27, 2002 in Acts. Cell-1/40003/2002 on section 3J of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, that section 3J would be operated only as regards the holder of the registered trade mark, the assessment made is contrary to law and the circular issued which is binding on the respondent. The petitioner further contends that in any event, the reassessment order suffered an error app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that should have been given on the tax paid by the petitioner on its purchase while working out the liability under section 3J of the Act, quite apart from the fact that the dispute raised was with reference to sale of goods under the name of Mr. White. The discussion in the order of assessment shows that there are no discussion as to why the claim for granting credit to the tune of ₹ 1,88,75,256 being the tax paid to the registered dealer on the sales to the petitioner, was not considered by the assessing authority. The reasons given in the order do not indicate as to whether the provisions of section 3J was considered in the proper perspective at all. The reasons for bringing the turnover under section 3J of the Act rest on groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
