9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thap, Government Advocate, for the respondent. ORDER Heard Mr. D. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. N. R. Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (the Act), and in this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of revision of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mine the total and taxable turnover. Though such notice was issued, it was not proceeded to and another notice was issued on October 24, 2007, combining all the proposals in the earlier notices. According to the respondent, the levy of four percent. is incorrect since the commodity is taxable at 12 per cent, as per the clarification issued by the Department dated July 2, 2004, and it is taxable at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the product was assessed to tax at four per cent. Therefore, the petitioner requested for accepting the explanation and for passing an order. Pursuant thereto, the respondent has passed the impugned order. 5. From the bare reading of the impugned order, it is seen that there is absolutely no discussion as to why the product should be classified under residuary entry, viz., entry 40 of Part D of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, then it would fall under the sub-item No. 3 of G. O. Ms. No. 30 dated March 27, 2002 and consequently fall under entry 18 of Part B of the First Schedule and in such an event, the rate of tax would be only at four per cent. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is held to be bad in law. 6. The respondent has levied penalty under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
