Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)123STC102Tribunal
1. These two tax revision cases are directed against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench) in T.A. Nos. 1138 of 1995 and 538 of 1996 dated July 8, 1999, The facts are as follows : By a revised order of assessment the assessing authority invoked Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 by imposing a tax of 5 per cent multi-point as against 4 per cent imposed earlier on cast iron spun pipes. The turnover for the years are Rs. 5,79,459 and Rs. 52,45,433 respectively. In reply to the notice, the petitioners contended that the end-products are cast iron pipes and they are nothing but cast iron castings in the form of pipe by spinning process. Therefore, they claimed that they are declared goods under item 4(1) of the Second Schedule. They also relied on a clarification by Government of India in Lr. P. 24/10/805 dated January 30, 1984 to the effect that cast iron castings continue to be cast iron. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)122STC95Tribunal
1. This tax appeal case is against the order of the Joint Commissioner for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The appellant was assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs, 10,58,004, Rs. 3,75,326, Rs. 11,54,319 and Rs. 4,70,575 respectively. Two appeals were filed on the ground that item 150 of the First Schedule had been struck down by the Madras High Court in [1985] 60 STC 125 (Sangu Chakra Hotels Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu) and even otherwise the appellants never applied for or granted recognition by the Tourism Department of Government of India, making the said entry inapplicable to the appellants. The first appellate authority decided the two appeals by a common order dated March 4, 1987. The first appellate authority allowed the appeals upholding the contention of the assessee as follows : "I conclude that the appellants' hotel has not been recognised by the Department of Tourism as an approved hotel. The item 150 of the First Schedule has been struck down...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)121STC623Tribunal
1. These tax revision cases have been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, in M.T.A.Nos. 33 and 34 of 1990 dated March 26, 1990. The assessments relate to the years 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. The short point involved in these cases is whether the aluminium scraps bought in auction from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and taxed by the assessing authority as sale of scraps, but allowed exemption of second sales of aluminium conductors falling under item 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 by the Appellate Tribunal, is in order.3. Mr. R. Mahadevan contended that the Electricity Board sold their aluminium scraps in auction and therefore, the scraps of aluminium cannot be equated to the original aluminium conductors and therefore, the claim allowed by the Tribunal is not in order.4. Mrs. Chitra Venkatraman, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee, stated the Tribunal has concluded that the aluminiu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)124STC411Tribunal
1. All these petitions have been filed by the Revenue seeking to excuse the delay of 205 days in filing a tax revision case in T.C. M.P. No.288 of 1999 and in all other cases to excuse the delay of 195 days in filing tax revision cases. In T.C.M.P. No. 288 of 1999 there is no appearance for the respondent. All these cases are taken up and a common order is passed because the issue involved is the same. In the petitions filed by the Government the assessee has filed a counter-affidavit through Mr. P. Radhakrishnan, Advocate. In the counter-affidavit it is pointed out that Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 provides for filing of tax revision cases before the Special Tribunal against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and has fixed a limitation of 90 days for filing such revisions from the date on which a copy of the order is served on the assessee or the revenue. The proviso to Section 38(1) empowers the Special Tribunal to excuse the delay in filing s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)122STC163Tribunal
1. This tax appeal is against the order of the Joint Commissioner (SMR) of Commercial Taxes, Chennai in Ref. No. N3/N4/48724 of 1991 dated January 20, 1992. Though the counsel for the appellant is absent, as the earlier decision of this Special Tribunal on this point is against the assessee, it is proposed to dispose of the case on merit. The short point for decision in this case is whether the silk cotton seeds could be covered by entry 6(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has mentioned the botanical name of cotton seed as mentioned in item 6(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as "Gossypium Spp." As the genetic name of the cotton seed is not relatable to silk cotton for which the botanical name is "Bombo malabarioum", it was held that silk cotton seeds are taxable at multi-point and not at single point. The reasoning given by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)123STC266Tribunal
1. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 the assessing authority passed an order of assessment on April 25, 1988 determining the total and taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs. 26,44,087 for the year 1981-82 and Rs. 1,23,600 for the year 1982-83. It transpires that one Satish Kumar Agarwal was doing business in cotton yarn at Coimbatore, both independently and also as consignment agent for non-residential principals. On examination of the records recovered during inspection made on August 9, 1983, the assessing authority found that the assessee at Bijapur in Karnataka State had despatched cotton yarn from Bijapur to Coimbatore through Chagan textiles. The above transaction was by way of consignment sale to the agent Satish Kumar Agarwal. The agent has given the sale bills and declaration in form F to enable the Karnataka mill to claim exemption from sales tax. But the agent did not render accounts for the sale of the goods in Tamil Nadu. The assessing authority proceeded to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2000)120STC388Tribunal
1. These tax revision cases have been filed against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, in T.A. Nos. 502 and 1024 of 1990 dated November 12, 1991. The assessments relate to the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The issue in both the appeals relates to the rate of tax to be levied on "safety valves" sold by the assessee. The assessee claimed that safety valves manufactured and sold by them are safety protection devices and installed on chambers like pipe-line, tanks, etc., carrying fluid or gas and the main function of the safety valve is to relieve any excess pressure which may build within the chamber and that the valves are not operated by means of any fuel or power and the valves after discharging the excess pressure close automatically without the aid of power and therefore the goods should be classified as multi-point goods. The assessing authority held that the safety valves are parts and accessories of machineries and therefore the goods have to be cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)123STC508Tribunal
1. As the tax revision cases and the tax appeal case raise mainly the common issue of disallowance of exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Central Act"), in respect of bus bodies built on chassis of manufacturers and exported to foreign countries, they are dealt with together in this order, since common submissions were made by learned counsel appearing on both sides. The details of the cases are as indicated below ; 1,16,98,263 at 16 per cent SC & ASC on raw rubber purchase turnover of 1,04,56,050 and 26,32,108 [section 12(5)(iii] penalty.79,79,925 at 15 per cent, 33,33,498 at 8 per cent and 25,57,501 [section 12(5)(iii)] penalty.2. The brief facts in respect of the main dispute relating to disallowance of exemption claimed under Section 5(3) of the Central Act, are as follows : In this case, the assessing authority stated that Tvl. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Madras, had entered into contract with the foreign buyer for export of passen...
Tag this Judgment!