TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresented by the Commercial Tax Officer [2010 (10) TMI 938 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Joint Commissioner (CT) Versus Sri Ranganathar Valves (P) Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 747 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - no tax can be collected without the authority of law. - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Case (Revision) No. 12 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2015 - R. Sudhakar And S. Vimala,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. A. R. Jayapratap Additional Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S. Vimala,J.) This Tax Case (Revision) is filed by the Revenue as against the order dated 30.11.2010 made in T.A.No.184 of 2005 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai raising the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, would not include export sale within its ambit? vi) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate that Sections 3 (3) and 3 (4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 are not designed as charging provisions as evident from the non-obstante clause occurring at the beginning of Section 3 (3) of the said Act? vii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has totally failed to consider that Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, was enacted to levy tax on sales or purchases within the State of Tamil Nadu alone as evident from the pre-factory explanation to the said Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent/assessee is dealers in chemicals. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue involved in this Revision is covered by a decision of this Court reported in (2010) 36 VST 67 (M/s.Tube Investments of India Limited V. State of Tamil Nadu). 5. Heard learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. In the decision reported in (2010) 36 VST 67 (M/s.Tube Investments of India Limited V. State of Tamil Nadu), this Court, after relying upon number of decisions, held as follows: 32. When the underlining principles of the framers of the Constitution itself in respect of export sales was so very paramount, at the very outset, it should be held that the imposition of tax as provided under Section 3(4) to be applicable to such an export sale w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hy is as follows:- (i) The Constitution of India (ii) Statutory law (which may be either Parliamentary law or law made by the State legislature). (iii) Delegated Legislation (which may be in the form of rules made under the statute, regulations made under the statute, etc) (iv) Purely administrative or executive orders. Applying the said principles to the facts of this case, as in the hierarchy of law, the Constitution provision will supersede any conflicting statutory provision, we hold that the interpretation sought to be laid on behalf of the State, to hold that Section 3(4) will apply to the export sale of the assesses will run counter to the well laid legal principles referred to above and the same cannot be countenance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
