9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which the learned Tribunals allowed the Appeals filed by the respective Assessee M/s.Fisher Sanmar Limited, Chennai and M/s.Saravana Engineering Traders, Coimbatore and held that that Additional Tax levied under Section 3(4) of the TNGST Act was not attracted for the goods manufactured by the Assessee and sold in the course of export, following the decision of this court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2010) 36 VST 67). 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Revenue fairly submits that the controversy involved in the case on hand is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Tube Investments of India Limited case, which was rightly followed by the learned Tribunal. 3. The rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State Representative viz., (1997) 107 STC 571 arose out of the interpretation of Section 6 of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in the matter of levy of purchase tax. But in our case, we are concerned about the tax liability under Section 3(4) of the TNGST Act 1959 which has been specifically considered and answered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the above stated case. In this case the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that the ratio held in 107 STC 571 could not be applied to the question involving levy of Tax under Section 3(4) of the TNGST Act 1959. We by respectfully following the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras stated supra hold that the case law in 107 STC 571 could not be applied to the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of the manufactured goods through seaport as well as airport. The petitioners took the stand that since the export sale took place in the state of Tamil Nadu, there could be no liability under Section 3(4) of the Act but it was not accepted by the assessing authority and assessment order was passed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal confirmed the assessment of Tax under Section 3(4) of the Act. On revision and writ petitions: Held, allowing the petitions, that when the State lacked the legislative competence by virtue of the Constitutional embargo to levy any tax on export sale, the indirect creation of any tax liability on such "export sales" on the inputs purchased could not at all be countenanced. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
