TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bone meal and horn meal are Organic manures - Tax revision case dismissed. - T.C.Nos.293, 300 & 188 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2017 - Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam and Mr. P.Velmurugan, JJ. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan(for all cases) Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.S.Karunakar(for all cases) ORDER Heard Mr.Raja Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. All these appeals have been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additional Bench) Madurai, dated 29.12.2003, 29.12.2003 and 09.06.2004, made in M.T.A.Nos.800/2002, 805/2002 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as well as the other materials, which were placed before the Tribunal to show that the said product is an organic manure. The dealer also placed reliance upon another decision in the case of Tvl.Arasan Fertilizers (P) Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Ettayapuram in A.P.No. 121 of 1997 dated 30.08.1999. The Revenue contented that the horn meal cannot be branded as 'manure', as it has been used other than manure. Therefore, it was contented that most accepted and most prevalent test, which is commonly known as Common Parlance Test has to be applied and if the same is done, it will not qualify for being termed as organic manure to get the benefit of exemption from the sales tax. Further, it was submitted that the use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote of the most important fact that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Special Appellate Tribunal accepted the fact that the purchases effected by the respondent dealer were for export sale. The question would be whether the transaction will not become an export sale, if there has been an intermediary process, as stated by the Revenue by adding chemicals to the said product and whether this would change the nature of transaction. The answer to the said question should be in negative, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India, reported in 1999 2 SCC 198. After analyzing Section 5(3) of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
