9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector Mr. K. Parthiban seeking to quash the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), the 1st respondent herein, in TIN. Nos. 33320984708/2007-08 & 33320984708/2008-09 dt 1.4.2015 in so far as it relates to the levy of Sales Tax at 12.5% on the turnover of Rs. 7,38,45,800/- & Rs. 8,56,66,675/- respectively and further direct the 1st respondent to levy tax at 4% in view of Authority For Clarification and Advance Ruling in A.C.A.R.R.No.8/2013-14 dt. 5.6.2013 and A.C.A.R.R. No.7/2013-14 dt 5.6.2013 issued under section 48A of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax 2006. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent had failed to see that when the petitioner's case is supported by Clarification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,38,45,800/- without notice to the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The case of the respondent, that the goods, namely, roof cladding and steel sheets, are taxable at 12.5%/14.5%, as they are classifiable under the residual entry, was denied by the petitioner. It is at this point of time, the Enforcement Wing Officials prepared inspection report and forwarded the same to the second respondent, who, on perusal of the said report, prepared D-3 report and again forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner, Velachery Assessment Circle, who was the erstwhile Assessing Officer of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly, the first respondent became the Assessing Officer as defined under Section 2(5) of the Act. In view of the subsequent development, the petitioner met the first respondent with details of the objections and the advance ruling with copy of the Invoices, and thereby requested him to drop the same. To that effect, he has also filed a representation dated 07.01.2015 specifically mentioning Section 48A(3) of the Act, which mandates that any clarification issued by the Advance Ruling is binding upon all the Assessing Officers working under the Special Commissioner. 6. It is well settled that the Assessing Officer is a quasi-judicial authority and in exercising his quasi-judicial function of completing the assessment, he is not bound by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
