Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)122STC288Tribunal
1. These tax revision cases are filed against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench) in T.A. Nos. 1235 of 1992, 983 of 1992, 671 of 1992 and 1277 of 1992 dated November 3, 1993. The appellant is a dealer in gases and oxygen. The assessments relate to the years 1986-87 to 1988-89. The disputes raised in these revision petitions are as follows : (a) Levy of tax at 10 per cent on cylinder holding charges collected by the assessee on the sales of gas and oxygen. The relevant turnover details are as follows :1986-87 Rs. 7,53,976 at 10 per cent1987-88 Rs. 9,56,084 at 10 per cent1987-88 Revision of assessment at 10 per cent Rs. 16,61,857 (b) Cost of lost cylinders assessed to tax on a turnover of Rs. 20,700 at 10 per cent for the assessment year 1987-88 in the original assessment.2. The facts leading to the present revisions in respect of the disputed items are as follows : The assessee claimed that cylinders are loaned to the customers for use of the gases contained in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2000)119STC346Tribunal
1. These tax revision petitions are against the common order in T.A.Nos. 282 of 1985, 380 of 1985 and 296 of 1986, dated December 16, 1986 by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, in respect of the disputed rate of tax, i.e., claiming 8 per cent of tax instead of 10 per cent as levied on a turnover of Rs. 2,46,168 relating to acromine colours for the assessment year 1981-82 and Rs. 2,53,391 for the assessment year 1982-83 and a turnover of Rs. 4,40,675 for the assessment year 1983-84.2. Tvl. Arunachalam and Co., dealers in dyes and chemicals while filing the return for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 reported the turnover of the first sales of acromine colours could be only at the rate of 8 per cent under entry 138 of the First Schedule.But the assessing authority felt that the acromine colour could be used as textile emulsion for printing in textiles, and the said colours can be used as pigments falling under item 110 of the First Schedule ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2000)118STC436Tribunal
1. As the issues involved in these original petitions are common and identical, they are dealt with together since submissions were also made by counsel appearing on either side in common.2. The common prayers in these petitions fall under the following categories : (a) In O.P. Nos. 1059 of 1999, 1064 of 1999, 1069 of 1999, 1074 of 1999, 1181 of 1999, 1192 of 1999, 1385 of 1999 and 1241 of 1999 the prayer is to declare that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1999 (hereinafter called "the Act 27 of 1999") are violative of entry 54 of the State List and ultra vires articles 14, 19(1)(g) and Part XIII of the Constitution of India. (b) In O.P. Nos. 1060 of 1999, 1065 of 1999, 1070 of 1999, 1075 of 1999, 1182 of 1999, 1191 of 1999, 1386 of 1999 and 1239 of 1999, the prayer is to declare that the provisions of Explanation II as enacted by Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Tamil Nadu Act 37 of 1999) (hereinafter cal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)124STC571Tribunal
1. All the above original petitions relate to the validity of Section 3-D or 3-E(1) and Part A or Part B of the Ninth Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or the assessment orders passed under the said provision. Since common issues arise in all the cases the original petitions are taken up jointly and a common order is passed as indicated below : 2. Mr. C. Natarajan, the learned Senior Counsel argued the case of the petitioner in O.P. No. 463 of 2000. The facts are as follows : The petitioners are running a chain of restaurants under the name and style of "Hotel Saravana Bhavan". They are a partnership firm. The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted Tamil Nadu Act No. 39 of 1997 with effect from April 1, 1997, introducing a special scheme for payment of tax by hotels and restaurants Section 3D and Part A of the Ninth Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 contain the relevant provision. It may be significant to note that with effect from June 17, 1999 th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
1. The petitioner is a company engaged in the export and import of sugar. For the year 1994-95 they had imported 13,000 m.t. of refined sugar from Thailand. They had effected sales in Tamil Nadu and also to dealers outside the State. However, since the outside dealers took delivery of the goods in Tamil Nadu the entire sales were treated as local sales. According to the petitioner they did not collect sales tax because they thought that the goods were exempt from sales tax. When a demand notice was served on them on June 24, 1994, they promptly filed Writ Petition Nos. 12275 to 12277 of 1994 on the file of the High Court. The High Court granted stay of recovery of sales tax in respect of sales effected prior to June 24, 1994. Those writ petitions were transferred to the Special Tribunal and numbered as T.P. Nos. 2413 to 2415 of 1997 and disposed of on June 17, 1997 permitting the petitioners to file objections. Thereafter the present impugned order has been passed on September 16, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2006)143STC589Tribunal
1. After allowing the Original Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 215 of 2001 in O.P. Nos. 1355 of 2000 and 216 of 2001 in O.P. Nos. 1356 of 2000 and 217 of 2001 in O.P. No. 1010 of 2000 so as to amend the prayer in the original petitions, the original petitions have been taken up for final disposal after hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel.2. In O.P. Nos. 1010 of 2000, 1356 of 2000 and 1355 of 2000 after amendment of the prayer as indicated, the prayer reads as follows: (a) To declare that the levy of sales tax by the State of Tamil Nadu on ethyl alcohol known as rectified spirit/industrial alcohol is illegal and unconstitutional. (b) The levy of sales tax on the administrative fee which does not form part of the industrial alcohol is illegal and unconstitutional.3. However, in O.P. Nos. 1044 of 2000, 1353 of 2000, 1354 of 2000 and 1357 of 2000, the prayer is to declare that the levy of sales tax on rectified spirit/industrial alcohol is illegal and unconstitutional.4. As the issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)127STC65Tribunal
1. All these original petitions have been filed to set aside the orders of assessments for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 against Sundaram Finance Ltd. and for 1993-94 to 1998-99 against Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. The assessment orders against Sundaram Finance Ltd. were passed under Section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on March 10, 2000 by the assessing authority levying tax for the lease of machineries. Ashok Leyland Ltd. also had leased out the machineries.Assessment order was passed against them on February 29, 2000 on the turnover relating to the transaction of lease. The petitioners would contend that the assessing authority has levied tax on these petitioners following the decision of this Tribunal in Upasana Finance Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1999] 113 STC 403 on the basis of the location of the machineries given on lease, but the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4500 of 1989 dated May 9, 2000 has reversed the decision in 20th Century Finance Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)124STC52Tribunal
The petitioner/assessee reported a total turnover of Rs. 1,39,93,476.59 and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,00,20,985.27. In this return, the petitioner included a turnover of Rs. 1,00,000 being the hire on lease of machinery at 3 per cent. Later, he filed a revised turnover claiming that the said turnover of Rs. 1,00,000 is not exigible to tax, because the machinery was leased out to a flour mill situate outside the State of Tamil Nadu. This contention was not accepted by the assessing authority and he proceeded to include the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as assessable at 3 per cent. He also levied penalty of Rs. 1,572 on account of short payment of surcharge. A further penalty of Rs. 10,734 was imposed under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, for failure to submit correct return and adopting a lesser rate of additional sales tax. A sum of Rs. 120 was levied as penalty under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)126STC183Tribunal
1. The common prayer in both the original petitions is to quash the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai in S.T.P. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001 in S.T.A. Nos. 156 and 157 of 2001 dated March 27, 2001 and to direct the respondent No. 2 to honour the refund order issued in his proceedings dated November 20, 2000.2. Mr. K. Ramaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the assessing authority in pursuance of the orders of the appellate authority issued refund orders for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The assessing authority did not take action to refund the excess tax paid in terms of the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner though an application was filed under Section 39-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Rule 32(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Subsequently, on the basis of an application filed under Section 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Rule 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2000)119STC145Tribunal
1. These three T.Ps. arise under the following circumstances. The petitioner who is the same person in all the three T.Ps. carries on business in the construction work and undertaking building contracts.For the purpose of executing such building contracts, the petitioner purchases metals, sand, bricks, wooden planks, hoses, etc., which are used in the construction work.2. The first respondent completed the assessment for the three years, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 in the following manner :Sl. No. TNGST No. Assessment year Date1 TNGST/260561/81-82 1981-82 14-03-19832 TNGST/260561/82-83 1982-83 07-12-19833 TNGST/878615/83-84 1983-84 07-01-1985 3. The petitioner was under the impression that they had to pay purchase tax on the purchase of construction materials aforesaid and the respondent was also under a similar mistaken impression. It was believed following [1958] 9 STC 353 (SC) (Gannon Dunkerley's case) that the construction materials are used in the construction of the end-product...
Tag this Judgment!