TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fall under Entry 51 in Part B of First Schedule to TNGST Act, 1959, at the relevant time and eligible to be taxed at 4%. Tax case revision dismissed. - Tax Case No.86 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2018 - S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Hari Babu ORDER ( Order of the Court was made by S. Manikumar, J ) Tax Case Revision is filed to revise the order, dated 29.08.2011, passed in T.A.No.129 of 2009, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai, by which, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the lower authorities, assessing the disputed turnover at 11% and directing the Assessing Officer to assess the product, viz., nylon, at 4%, treating the item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Polymide (Nylon) is not a mere fabric raw material but an additive which will impart optimum toughness and long term dimensional stability. The fact that the price of the product is in the range of ₹ 1.15 to 1.20 lakhs per tones as against the price of ₹ 25,000/- per tonne for ordinary plastic raw material is also significant. Hence, it was clarified that Polymide falls under section 67 of Part D of the I Schedule taxable at 11%. The appellants filed copy of the letter dated 11.11.1992 of CIPET, Chennai-32 which states that LDPE, P.P., P.V.C., HDPE, Nylon-6 and Acrylic Pellets are Plastic raw materials. The commodity dealt by this dealer is polymide. The letter does not speak about polymide. Also it has not stated how the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.08.1993 and it is not possible to collect 11% anticipating the clarification dated 27.01.2001. The section 28-A of the TNGST Act was introduced by Act 60/97 effective from 06.01.1997. Any clarification issued after 6.11.1997 has to be followed by the Assessing Officer. The Clarification dated 10.08.1993 is prior to introduction to Section 28-A and it is not binding on the Assessing Officer. Further clarification is issued only to clarify a doubt. It will have retrospective effect also as it is issued to remove ambiguity only. So Assessing Officer need not follow the clarification on 10.08.1993 and the Assessing Officer can utilize the clarification issued on 27.01.2001 for the assessment year 1999-2000 also. Polymide is held as an additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stic raw material, as per the clarification of Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in L.Dis Acts Cell-II/80772/93, dated 10.08.1993 and thus, they paid 4%, as their product would fall under Entry 51 part B of first Schedule, i.e, Plastic Raw Materials assessable to tax at 4%. They further contended that levy of higher rate of tax at 11% by the Assessing Officer, based on the clarification of Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in D.D is Act Cell-II/86322/2000, dated 27.01.2001, is not valid, since the clarification was not in force during the assessment year 1999-2000 and was issued subsequent to the assessment year. 5. However, following the decisions in Paper Products Ltd., v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect only? 4. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is correct in interpreting that the clarification issued on 27/1/2001 is not applicable for the assessment year 1999 2000, though final order passed on 20/5/2003 much after the clarification dated 27/1/2001 issued in the disputed subject of levy of tax on the polyamide? 7. In support of the above substantial questions of law, the State has raised following grounds for consideration, (i) Since polymide is a raw material for both plastic and fabric industry, it cannot be classified under Entry 51 of Part B of I Schedule as plastic raw materials alone. (ii) Clarification No.40/2001, dated 27.01.2001 was issued under Section 28A of the TNGST Act, 1959 and therefore, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
