9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/2002 to the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries Act, 1981, in the year 2002, luxury tax was imposed at 1% on gold, silver, platinum jewellery and other precious stones at every point of purchase. 3. Similar amendments to luxury tax on the other states were subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Godfrey Phillips India Limited and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2005) 139 STC 537. There was however no challenge to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries Act, 1981 as amended by Act No.24/2002. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered its decision on 20.01.2005 in M/s.Godfrey Phillips India Limited case (referred to supra). In Paragraphs 83 and 93, it was held as under:- "83. Hence on an application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sales effected by the petitioner during the Assessment Year 2002-2003. 7. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was not liable to pay tax in view of the Exemption granted vide Notification dated 29.12.2004 in G.O.Ms.No.201, Commercial Tax (C2) Department of the State Government in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Godfrey Phillips India Limited case (referred to supra). 8. The petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2020 for refund of the amount that was paid pursuant to the impugned order. 9. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that demand confirmed is arbitrary, illegal and was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. The learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government Advocate for the respondent would submit that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Godfrey Phillips India Limited case (referred to supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dealt with the issue relating to unjust enrichment. 17. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent has drawn attention to paragraphs 97 and 98, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also stated that the assessees will have to prove that there was no unjust enrichment. 18. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 19. As a matter of fact, the issue relating to unjust enrichment was considered by a constitutional bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
