9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to TNVAT Act), is the issue involved in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the order dated 03.10.2020 passed in W.P.Nos.9996 of 2012, 17314 of 2015, 3666 of 2012 and 21237 of 2011 [Tvl. Makkal Stores, rep. by its partner A.J. Issath & 3 others V. State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and others] in which the learned Judge of this Court has relied upon another decision in W.P(MD).No.3744 of 2015 in the case Tvl.Shanmugamari Timbers V. The Commercial Tax Officer, Chokkikulam Assessment Circle, Madurai-20, had held that the amendment to Section 3(4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll his sales of rupees fifty lakhs and above. Due to this provision, while the dealer does not collect tax on turnover relating to taxable goods below rupees fifty lakhs, he is required to pay the tax. 2. While moving the demand for grant in respect of the Commercial Taxes Department for the year 2011-12, the Hon'ble Minister for Commercial Taxes and Registration has announced that amendment to subsection (4) of section 3 of the said act will be made to rectify the above situation, so that if the turnover relating to taxable goods of a dealer paying tax under clause (a), in a year, reaches rupees fifty lakhs at any time during that year, such dealer is liable to pay tax under sub-section (2) of that section on all his sales of taxable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ularly assessed, whereas, the petitioner took the view that as per the amendment in 2011, only the excess over and above Rs. 50.00 lakhs could be regularly assessed. The learned Judge took note of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vatika Township Private Limited (supra), Keshavlal Jethalal Shah V. Mohanlal Bhagwandas & Another (1968 AIR 1336) and Sebi V.Alliance Finstoc Ltd. (2015) 16 SCC 731) as well as the doctrine of fairness in coming to the conclusion that Act 27 of 2011 would have retrospective application. In conclusion, he set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the file of the respondent to pass orders a fresh after hearing the petitioner. 41. This decision has not be challenged by the revenue and hence, even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
