TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 15(3), Rule 15(18), Rule 15(20) and Rule 15(21) of TNVAT Rules, 2007. In the case of inter-state stock to its branch/depot, outside the State of Tamil Nadu, such branch/depot would have issued a suitable Form-F to the petitioner. Such inter-state stock transfers/depot to its branch outside the State would have been liable to tax under local VAT enactments on further sale from such from its inter-state branch/depot outside the State of Tamil Nadu. There should have been proper correlation of documents. To the extent, the petitioner was unable to prove intra-state/ inter-state stock transfer to its branch/depot, tax implication would be different under the respective enactments. For inter-state branch/depot transfer outside the State, where the petitioner was unable to produce documents, Section 6(A) 3 of the CST Act, 1956 would be applicable. Denial of exemption on export under the provisions of the CST Act, 1956 will have an impact on assessment under TNVAT Act, 2006. If exports are not proved, such turnovers are liable to be taxed under the TNVAT Act, 2006. Therefore, as sequitur, a revised assessment order under TNVAT Act, 2006 should have been passed by invokin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount confirmed in the impugned assessment orders dated 12.12.2014 impugned in W.P. Nos. 764 to 766 of 2015. 4. Aforesaid sum of Rs. 423,48,00,000/- was refundable to the petitioner under G.O. (MS) No. 5 dated 12.1.2009. It has been ordered to be appropriated towards tax liability of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1535.85 crores as confirmed by the 3rd respondent vide impugned orders dated 12.12.2014. 5. The impugned assessment orders dated 12.12.2014 were purportedly passed by the respondent herein after considering the submissions made by the Petitioner for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 6. Initially assessment orders dated 28.2.2014 were passed by the 3rd respondent for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. The petitioner had also filed appeals before the Appellate authority against these assessment orders dated 28.2.2014. These assessment orders dated 28.2.2014 were challenged by the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 9077-79 of 2014 on the ground that they were passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. The petitioner, also filed W.P. Nos. 9725-27 of 2014 and prayed for a direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anced primarily based on the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the respective writ petitions by the Petitioner and the supporting documents that were filed along with the respective writ petitions. 16. Challenging the impugned order, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following cases:- (i). Dhirajlal Giridhalal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , AIR (1955) SC 271. (ii). A.V.Fernandez vs. State of Kerala , AIR (1957) SC 657. (iii). Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co., Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Another , (1970) 1 SCC 622. (iv). Raza Textile Limited, Rampur vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow , (1974) 33 STC 112. (v). Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow and Others vs. Suresh Chand Jain, Tendu Leaves Dealer, Lalipur and Others (1988) SCC (Tax) 450. (vi). Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi (2003) 151 E.L.T. 254 S.C (vii). Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, New Delhi vs. Vatika Township Private Limited (2015) 1 SCC 1. (viii). Nokia India Private Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Ms. NilanjanaSur vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commerce cannot be taxed by a State Legislature even if its situs is within the State, because the State Legislature has no legislative competence to impose tax on sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. That can be done only by Parliament. If therefore a question arises whether a sale is exigible to tax by the State Legislature, it may have to be considered whether it is a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The same sale in another context may have to be examined from a different point of view for determining where its situs lies and whether it is a sale inside the State or outside the State. There is therefore no incompatibility in the same sale being both a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce within the meaning of sec.3 of the Central Act as also a sale inside the State in accordance with the principles laid down in sub-s. 2 of sec.4 of the Central Act. 22A. In Mohd. Sirajuddin Case 1975 (2) SCC 47, it was observed as under: Although the exemption claimed for the sales as export sales was denied, the conclusion of the High Court that the sales to STC were inter-State sales chargeable under Section 5 (1) of the CST Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er correlation of documents. To the extent, the petitioner was unable to prove intra-state/ inter-state stock transfer to its branch/depot, tax implication would be different under the respective enactments. For inter-state branch/depot transfer outside the State, where the petitioner was unable to produce documents, Section 6(A) 3 of the CST Act, 1956 would be applicable. 30. Similar eventuality has not been provided where exemption on exports turnover is denied under CST Act, 1956 or where there are no documents to substantiate inter-state sale under the CST Act, 1956. 31. That apart, as a consequence of the denial of the exemption on a part of the export turnover allegedly short declared when compared with the Annual Performance Report (APR) in Form I under the provisions of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 read with Rule 22 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, demand should have been made under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 32. Denial of exemption on export under the provisions of the CST Act, 1956 will have an impact on assessment under TNVAT Act, 2006. If exports are not proved, such turnovers are liable to be taxed under the TNVAT Act, 2006. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
