Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2006)146STC80Tribunal
1. The prayer in the original petition is to set aside the original order of assessment in TNGST No. 1121036/2000-2001 dated February 28, 2003 with direction to grant further opportunity to file objection with regard to the averment of sales of different commodity on the disputed transaction.2. I heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the records. The case of the petitioner is that he is a dealer in RBD palmolein oil and an assessee on the file of the respondent. During the assessment year 2000-2001, inter alia, the respondent proposed to assess the sale value of Rs. 1,37,38,615 pertaining to sale of 29 old tanker lorries at 12 per cent treating them as first sales within Tamil Nadu, pursuant to the letter of the petitioner. The relevant proposal in the notice dated January 20, 2003 reads as under: (i) Sale value of 29 (twenty-nine) vehicles of tanker lorries--Rs. 1,37,38,615. It is stated in the letter cited that out of 29 vehicles, 28 vehicles were purchased from the deal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)135STC373Tribunal
1. Both the review petitions have been filed to review the orders of this Special Tribunal passed in O.P. Nos. 569 and 649 of 2003 dated September 23, 2003 and to amend the same in the light of the materials produced that the paper tubes and cones are packing materials.2. I heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the connected records. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the dispute in the original petitions was as to whether the paper cones and tubes could be treated as packing material, as claimed by the petitioner or as textile machinery parts, as viewed by the authorities.But, in the order under review, this Special Tribunal has held that the paper cones and tubes are neither "parts and accessories" of textile machinery nor a packing material, but classified the same as "any goods" used in connection with manufacture of yarn. Hence, the present review petitions to review the said order and amend the same that the paper cones and tubes are packing material...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2005)139STC294Tribunal
1. The common prayer in all the original petitions is to quash the revised orders of assessment dated May 29, 2003 made for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, wherein the first respondent has levied purchase tax under Section 7-A(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on the purchase turnover of vegetable oil purchased by the petitioner from the registered dealer.2. The allegations of the petitioner are that during the course of his business, he purchased sunflower oil, soyabean oil and refined RBD palmolein oil from various registered dealers inside the State of Tamil Nadu and the same were stock transferred to his branches outside the State of Tamil Nadu. This was already noticed at the time of original assessment and final orders were made. Subsequently, the first respondent, noticing that the goods purchased from registered dealers had not suffered tax at their hands due to exemption granted by the Government under Section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)138STC83Tribunal
1. The prayer in the original petition is to quash the revised order of assessment in TNGST 0740578/1997-98 dated February 28, 2003, wherein the second respondent has assessed a turnover of Rs. 74,86,413 at 11 per cent on which, the assessing authority had already allowed second sales exemption.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is engaged in the business of selling pre-recorded audio cassettes. He purchased pre-recorded audio cassettes, from suppliers in Tamil Nadu, who are also registered dealers under the TNGST Act. For the supply of pre-recorded audio cassettes made to the petitioner, the suppliers also charge sales tax under the TNGST Act. Therefore, the sales at the hands of the petitioner are second sales eligible for second sale exemption.Tvl. Super Recording Co. Ltd., is a manufacturer of recorded audio cassettes and when they sell such pre-recorded cassettes to the petitioner by charging excise duty as well as sales tax, this sale transactio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)135STC365Tribunal
1. The prayer in the Original Petition No. 569 of 2003 is to quash the revised order of assessment dated March 13, 2003 made in TNGST No.6060579/1999-2000, wherein the respondent has assessed the transactions in respect of sale of paper cones against form XVII, under Section 3(2) of the TNGST Act, 1959 under entry 76, Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act at four per cent. The petitioner claims that the sale of paper cones to spinning mills for winding of yarn on it, is eligible for concessional levy at three per cent as packing material. Against this impugned order, the petitioner has also preferred an appeal and the same is pending.2. The prayer in the Original Petition No. 649 of 2003 is to quash the order of assessment made in TNGST No. 2020320/2001-2002 dated May 16, 2003, wherein the respondent has assessed the transactions pertaining to sale of paper cones against form XVII, under Section 3(2) of the TNGST Act at four per cent. In this case also, the petitioner claims t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)136STC311Tribunal
1. The prayer in the original petition is to quash the attachment order issued in TNGST No. 0441684/2003/A3 dated April 28, 2003, along with the B6 notice issued in TNGST No. 0441684/2000-2001 and 2001-02 dated April 28, 2003 by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to proceed against the second respondent to recover the tax amount.2. The petitioner states that he is a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner undertook sub-contract work of construction of factory building for M/s. Hyundai Project at Sriperumbudur comprising roofing and wall cladding works from the principal contractor, M/s. Dual Structurals and Industries Ltd./the second respondent herein. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the work order and in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-F, the principal contractor/second respondent was deducting two per cent tax amount from the amount payable to the sub-contractor/petitioner herein. Accordingly, a tax amount...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2006)143STC114Tribunal
1. The prayer in the original petition is to set aside the urgent notice in TNGST No. 0640640/ 2002-2003/A3 dated June 10, 2003.2. The petitioner stated that he is a registered dealer and an assessee on the files of the respondent. For the assessment year 2002-2003, he filed monthly A1 returns for the months of April to August, 2002 and remitted tax to the Government at the rate of 12 per cent in respect of sales of cellular telephone handsets received on stock transfer basis from the petitioner's New Delhi Office, which imported goods from abroad. On May 21, 2003, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, demanding a difference of tax of Rs. 56,42,128 on the ground that the petitioner has paid only 12 per cent tax on the sales of cellular telephone handsets, but the cellular telephone handsets imported and sold by the petitioner in Tamil Nadu attracts 20 per cent tax with effect from March 27, 2002. The notice demanding payment of difference tax was issued without any opportu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)134STC418Tribunal
1. Original Petitions Nos. 813, 815, 817, 819, 822, 931, 959, 969, 996, 1006, 1081 of 2002 are filed by the petitioners for declaration, declaring that serial No. 8 of Part G to the First Schedule as introduced by Tamil Nadu Act No. 18 of 2002 as it stood between March 27, 2002 and June 30, 2002 as ab initio void and ultra vires articles 14, 265, 286, 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.2. Original Petitions Nos. 814, 816, 818, 820, 902, 930, 942, 958, 970, 1007, 1080, 1103, 1115 of 2002 and 115 of 2003 are filed by the petitioners to issue declaration, declaring serial No. 9 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as introduced by Tamil Nadu Act No. 22 of 2002 with effect from July 1, 2002 ultra vires articles 14, 265, 286, 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.3. As all these original petitions are filed challenging Tamil Nadu Acts Nos. 18 of 2002 and 22 of 2002, we state the relevant facts in Original Petitions Nos. 813 and 814 of 2002 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)137STC345Tribunal
1. Original Petition No. 406 of 2001 is filed by M/s. Automotive Coaches and Components Ltd., Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District to set aside the letter issued by the second respondent in Lr. No.14397/B2/2000 dated November 30, 2000 and pass orders granting exemption to the petitioner as was granted in G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue Department, dated January 17, 1972 either under Section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.2. Original Petition No. 407 of 2001 is filed by the same petitioner for remission of taxes and penalties imposed upon the petitioner of Rs. 2,66,03,725 on the sales of bus bodies made to exporters during the period 1988-89 to 1996-97 vide proceedings in TNGST/150056/88-89 to 93-94 on various dates and TNGST/0860415/96-97 dated April 2, 1998 passed by the first respondent.3. Original Petition No. 453 of 2001 is filed by the petitioner--M/s.Anamallais Engineering, Pollachi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)138STC48Tribunal
1. The petitioner was doing business in timber and he was having registration under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner closed his business in the month of February, 2001 and he intimated the same to the respondent properly. For the assessment year 2000-2001, the petitioner has reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 8,58, 339 and submitted form I return and paid the tax. While so, the petitioner received impugned assessment order passed by the respondent on February 10, 2003. The order which was served on the petitioner is not legible.Therefore, the petitioner requested the respondent to furnish the clean copy of the assessment order on February 20, 2003. Till date, there was no response from the respondent.2. Neither the petitioner nor the partners of the petitioner's firm have received any summons mentioned in the said order. They have also not received any pre-assessment notice. The address of the petitioner is very much available in the files of the responde...
Tag this Judgment!