9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petitions Date Tax demanded Penalty Demanded 1. WP.No.764 of 2015 12.12.2014 266,37,56,223 280,23,07,550 2. WP.No.765 of 2015 12.12.2014 232,26,43,307 150,72,92,459 3. WP.No.766 of 2015 12.12.2014 413,17,92,470 193,06,93,416 Total Grand Total Rs. 1535,84,85,425/- 3. In W.P. No. 30371 of 2019, the petitioner has prayed for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash G.O(MS) No. 32 Industries (MIF.1) Department dated 28.3.2017 issued by 4th respondent therein transferring the subsidy amount Rs. 423,48,00,000/- (which was otherwise refundable to the petitioner) to the respondent Commercial Tax Department in view of the 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 cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Act, 2005 read with Rule 22 of the Special Economic Zones Rules 2006. In the impugned orders, the Annual Performance Report (APR) has been referred to as Annual Progress Report (APR). 14. It is the case of the respondent in the impugned orders, that the turnover declared by the petitioner under Rule 22 in Form-1 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 was much higher when compared to the total turnover declared under the returns filed under provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 15. Although the Petitions were filed on 07.01.2015, no counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent. The arguments were advanced 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and a sale inside the State. Even an inter-State sale must have a situs and the situs may be in one State or another. It does not involve any contradiction in saying that an inter-state sale or purchase is inside a State or outside it. The situs of a sale may fall for consideration from more than one point of view. It may require to be considered for the purpose of determining its exigibility to tax as also for other purposes such as the one arising in the present cases. Of course, a sale which is in the course of inter- State trade or 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 insi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have generated Delivery Note in form JJ under Rule 15(3), Rule 15(18), Rule 15(20) and Rule 15(21) of TNVAT Rules, 2007. 28. 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. 29. 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. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
