2011 (10) TMI 548

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arthasarathy for K. Kumaresan The order of the court was made by P. JYOTHIMANI-The Revenue is on revision as against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, made in T.A. No. 489 of 1999 dated January 31, 2000. The revision was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t paragraph 19, it was held as follows (page 559 in 22 VST): "State of Tamil Nadu v. P.M.A. Mathurai Veerasamy & Co. [1983] 52 STC 131 (Mad) had rightly held that if it was the intention of the Legislature that the entire gamut of the provisions of the principal Act were to be applied to the later Act then it could very well have said so: and that if section 3(2) had been so worded then, there wo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nalty. Karthik Roller Flour Mills case (Writ Petition Nos. 6777 and 6778 of 2001 decided on August 14, 2002-Madras High Court) correctly hold that in the absence of the substantive provision, in the AST Act itself, relating to levy of interest, the provisions of the TNGST Act cannot be the source of power of such levy. Similarly, unless there is a charging section for levy of penalty, there can be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X