SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/57003 |
Court | Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu |
Decided On | Jan-04-2001 |
Judge | J Kanakaraj, V R Vice, L Palamalai, A Member |
Reported in | (2002)125STC447Tribunal |
Appellant | Sri Vinayaga Pulverising Mills |
Respondent | Commercial Tax Officer |
Excerpt:
1. this tax appeal case is against the order of the joint commissioner-iii (smr) of commercial taxes, chennai, in ref. no.n1/3584/91 dated april 7, 1994. the dispute relates to a turnover of rs. 10,03,717 assessed to tax in the suo motu revision as sales of "tapioca thippi flour" for the assessment year 1990-91 and for which, the assessee is not entitled to exemption, in terms of g.o.p. no.290/ctre dated march 11, 1983 which relates to sale of "tapioca thippi" only.2. in the first appeal, the appellate assistant commissioner on perusing the sample produced before him, stated that the assessee sold "tapioca thippi" in granule form and not "tapioca thippi flour", as alleged by the assessing authority and therefore, exemption was granted in terms of g.o.p. no. 290/ctre dated march 11, 1983 see [1983] 53 stc statutes 6 and as per the clarification of the commissioner of commercial taxes in k. dis. acts cell-v/38259/92 dated june 19, 1992 see [1993] 89 stc circulars and clarifications, page 4, sl. no. 34.3. in the suo motu revision order, the joint commissioner has referred to the letter given by the buyer on november 13, 1991, which is available at page 151 of the assessment file, wherein it has been clearly stated that the buyer received only "tapioca thippi flour" in terms of the purchase order. referring to the purchase order and also the goods receipt notes available in the assessment file, the joint commissioner categorically stated that the assessee supplied only "tapioca thippi flour" and the word, "ttf" noted in the purchase order clearly showed that the transaction was only for supply of "tapioca thippi flour". thus, the order of the appellate assistant commissioner was set aside and the order of the assessing authority was restored in respect of a turnover of rs. 10,03,717. hence the present appeal.4. mr. mohammed shafeeq, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the assessee supplied only "tapioca thippi" in granule form and therefore, the statement of the joint commissioner that assessee supplied "tapioca thippi" in flour form is incorrect. further, he referred to the decision of the special tribunal in t.c. (r) no. 891 of 1997 dated october 4, 1999 in the case of state of tamil nadu v. arasu traders wherein it was held that "tapioca kappi" which was derived from "tapioca thippi" was held to be eligible for exemption, in terms of the government notification in g.o.p. no. 290/ctre dated march 11, 1983.5. mr. r. mahadevan, learned government advocate, contended that the joint commissioner has categorically stated, with reference to the materials available in the record that the assessee sold only "tapioca thippi flour" and that the exemption relates to only "tapioca thippi" and therefore, the rejection of the claim of exemption for a different commercial commodity, namely, "tapioca thippi flour" is quite in order.6. we have considered the contentions carefully and perused the records. while extending the grant of exemption to "kappi", we have categorically stated that "kappi" was nothing but an inferior variety of "thippi". only in that context, we have held that exemption is available for "kappi" also, in terms of g.o.p. no. 290/ctre dated march 11, 1983.7. but, in the present case before us, the issue relates to supply to "tapioca thippi flour". definitely, "tapioca thippi" and "tapioca thippi flour" are different commercial commodities, as rightly held by the joint commissioner. the government notification specifically refers to "tapioca thippi" only. while considering the exemption notification, it should be construed strictly and in that view, we find that there is no case to extend the exemption for "tapioca thippi flour". as rightly pointed out by the joint commissioner in his order with reference to purchase orders and goods receipt notes, it has been categorically shown that the assessee supplied only "tapioca thippi flour". in fact, in reply to the pre-assessment notice of the assessing authority, with reference to weighment slips issued by tvl. periyar district co-operative milk producers union ltd., it was stated by the assessee himself that in the weighment slips, only the supply of "tapioca thippi flour" was indicated. in this connection, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the supreme court in the case of "rajasthan flour mills ltd," reported in [1993] 91 stc 408, wherein it was held that "wheat" and products like, flour, maida and suji derived from "wheat", are different commercial commodities. thus, we find that the conclusion reached by the joint commissioner that "tapioca thippi flour" is a different commercial commodity and therefore, the exemption granted in g.o.p. no. 290/ctre dated march 11, 1983 is not to be extended for "tapioca thippi flour" supplied by the assessee, is quite in order and there is no case to interfere with the order of the joint commissioner.and this tribunal doth further order that order on being produced being punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.issued under my hand and the seal of this tribunal on the 4th day of january, 2001.
Judgment: 1. This tax appeal case is against the order of the Joint Commissioner-III (SMR) of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, in Ref. No.N1/3584/91 dated April 7, 1994. The dispute relates to a turnover of Rs. 10,03,717 assessed to tax in the suo motu revision as sales of "Tapioca thippi flour" for the assessment year 1990-91 and for which, the assessee is not entitled to exemption, in terms of G.O.P. No.290/CTRE dated March 11, 1983 which relates to sale of "tapioca thippi" only.
2. In the first appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on perusing the sample produced before him, stated that the assessee sold "tapioca thippi" in granule form and not "tapioca thippi flour", as alleged by the assessing authority and therefore, exemption was granted in terms of G.O.P. No. 290/CTRE dated March 11, 1983 See [1983] 53 STC Statutes 6 and as per the clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in K. Dis. Acts Cell-V/38259/92 dated June 19, 1992 See [1993] 89 STC Circulars and Clarifications, page 4, Sl. No. 34.
3. In the suo motu revision order, the Joint Commissioner has referred to the letter given by the buyer on November 13, 1991, which is available at page 151 of the assessment file, wherein it has been clearly stated that the buyer received only "tapioca thippi flour" in terms of the purchase order. Referring to the purchase order and also the goods receipt notes available in the assessment file, the Joint Commissioner categorically stated that the assessee supplied only "tapioca thippi flour" and the word, "TTF" noted in the purchase order clearly showed that the transaction was only for supply of "tapioca thippi flour". Thus, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside and the order of the assessing authority was restored in respect of a turnover of Rs. 10,03,717. Hence the present appeal.
4. Mr. Mohammed Shafeeq, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the assessee supplied only "tapioca thippi" in granule form and therefore, the statement of the Joint Commissioner that assessee supplied "tapioca thippi" in flour form is incorrect. Further, he referred to the decision of the Special Tribunal in T.C. (R) No. 891 of 1997 dated October 4, 1999 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Arasu Traders wherein it was held that "tapioca kappi" which was derived from "tapioca thippi" was held to be eligible for exemption, in terms of the Government Notification in G.O.P. No. 290/CTRE dated March 11, 1983.
5. Mr. R. Mahadevan, Learned Government Advocate, contended that the Joint Commissioner has categorically stated, with reference to the materials available in the record that the assessee sold only "tapioca thippi flour" and that the exemption relates to only "tapioca thippi" and therefore, the rejection of the claim of exemption for a different commercial commodity, namely, "tapioca thippi flour" is quite in order.
6. We have considered the contentions carefully and perused the records. While extending the grant of exemption to "kappi", we have categorically stated that "kappi" was nothing but an inferior variety of "thippi". Only in that context, we have held that exemption is available for "kappi" also, in terms of G.O.P. No. 290/CTRE dated March 11, 1983.
7. But, in the present case before us, the issue relates to supply to "tapioca thippi flour". Definitely, "tapioca thippi" and "tapioca thippi flour" are different commercial commodities, as rightly held by the Joint Commissioner. The Government notification specifically refers to "tapioca thippi" only. While considering the exemption notification, it should be construed strictly and in that view, we find that there is no case to extend the exemption for "tapioca thippi flour". As rightly pointed out by the Joint Commissioner in his order with reference to purchase orders and goods receipt notes, it has been categorically shown that the assessee supplied only "tapioca thippi flour". In fact, in reply to the pre-assessment notice of the assessing authority, with reference to weighment slips issued by Tvl. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., it was stated by the assessee himself that in the weighment slips, only the supply of "tapioca thippi flour" was indicated. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Rajasthan Flour Mills Ltd," reported in [1993] 91 STC 408, wherein it was held that "wheat" and products like, flour, maida and suji derived from "wheat", are different commercial commodities. Thus, we find that the conclusion reached by the Joint Commissioner that "tapioca thippi flour" is a different commercial commodity and therefore, the exemption granted in G.O.P. No. 290/CTRE dated March 11, 1983 is not to be extended for "tapioca thippi flour" supplied by the assessee, is quite in order and there is no case to interfere with the order of the Joint Commissioner.
And this tribunal doth further order that order on being produced being punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.
Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 4th day of January, 2001.