9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). The first respondent had assessed the petitioner and passed an order relating to the assessment year 2004-05, levying resale tax at 1% representing second sales of old conveyor belts, which were purchased by the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). Subsequently, the first respondent re-opened the assessment and issued a pre-revision notice dated 30.06.2008, proposing to levy tax at 12% on the entire turnover of Rs. 24,25,114/- under Section 3(2) of the TNGST Act, to which, the petitioner filed its objection on 15.07.2008. However, the first respondent passed the revised assessment order vide proceedings in TNGST No.2740986/04-05 dated 30.10.2008, confirming his proposal levying 12% tax on the petitioner. Aggrieved ove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to him, the order impugned in this writ petition is perfectly right and in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference. 5.Heard both sides and perused the records. 6.Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner with respect to the assessment years 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2005-06 was allowed by the first respondent, granting exemption from tax on the sales of conveyor belts purchased from TNEB as second sales upto 30.06.2002 and levying 1% resale tax from 01.07.2002 onwards. However, in respect of the assessment year 2004-05, the first respondent revised the assessment levying 12% tax on the turnover of Rs. 24.25,114/-, which was also affirmed by the second respondent /Appellate Authority. 7.According to the petitioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent sale in the State. 14. There is no warrant for the emphasis that would appear to have been "placed by the Madras High Court on the phrase "taxable sale". The State Act does not fix the single point of the levy at the first taxable sale; it fixes it at "the point of first sale". The impugned circular cannot validly shift the point of levy from the first sale to a subsequent sale and it is, therefore, bad in law." Clarification dated 24.04.2003 issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai: "Thiru G.Shanmugam, Salem 636 002, in his letter cited has requested rate of tax clarification under Section 28-A of the TNGST Act 1959, for resale of Old Conveyor Belt purchased from the Tamil Nadu Electricit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... many cases, the Appellate Authority as well as the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessees. Even in the present case, the first respondent had accepted the original assessment of the petitioner for the earlier years. However, for the assessment year 2004-05, they have strangely revised the assessment levying tax at 12% on the disputed turnover and the same was also confirmed by the second respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner. 9.Considering all the above aspects, this Court is of the view that such revision of assessment cannot be countenanced, as the same is very well against the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Shanmuga Traders (cited supra) as well as the clarification iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
