9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliefs: (i) In W.P.Nos.19866 to 19868 of 2013, the petitioner has challenged the Assessment Orders passed by the respondent/Assessing Officer dated 16.05.2013 for the Assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13. (ii) In W.P.No.22263 of 2013, the petitioner has challenged a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 11.12.2007. 2. The reason for challenging the clarification dated 11.12.2007 is on account of the fact that the Assessing Officer followed the said clarification and completed the assessment and held that the petitioner's product cannot be treated as an Information Technology product and it is only a telecommunication cable and hence, levying tax at 4% does not arise and the product is to be taxed at 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tax in respect of the products dealt with by the petitioner. 6. In W.P.Nos.19866 to 19868 of 2013, the petitioner is challenging the Assessment Orders for the Assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13. As pointed out earlier, the Assessment orders have been solely based upon the clarification issued by the Commissioner, which is now held to be not binding on the petitioner. To demonstrate as to what is the nature of the product, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certain materials from which it is seen that the cable is to be used in low voltage single transmission in the Information Technology industries. The technical specifications have been given in the said brochure. 7. The learned counsel referred to the clarification issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether the product will fall within Entry 68 of Part B of First schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which deals with Information Technology Product. For testing this question, the respondent has to necessarily examine the product, its application and all other technical specifications before arriving at a conclusion. Having arrived at a conclusion that it is an Information Technology product, the respondent should consider as to under which entry the product would fall, whether Entry 19 or Entry 20 as submitted by the petitioner. Hence, for the above reasons, the impugned Assessment orders have to be redone. 9. In the result, (i) W.P.Nos.19866 to 19868 of 2013 are allowed and the impugned Assessment Orders are set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
