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 : (2001)122STC421Tribunal
1. This tax revision case raises an interesting question based on interpretation of certain terms in tax law well-known in legal circles.Though the modus operandi of the transaction is also well-known in this country, minute differences based on the terms of the contract give rise to different results as to whether there was a sale in the course of import or a local sale. A determination on the above questions will lead to drastic consequences in the matter of the levy of tax. It is good to remember Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in this connection to find out when there is a sale or purchase of goods in the course of import or export. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 of the CST Act lays emphasis on the sale or purchase occasioning an export or import or transfer of document of title to the goods taking place in high-sea. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 may not be relevant for the purpose of our case.2. Without, first, adverting to the facts of the case, one cannot go ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)134STC240Tribunal
1. This tax appeal case is against the order of the Joint Commissioner (SMR) of Commercial Taxes, Chennai in Ref. No. N2/51709/89 dated September 19, 1991. The assessment relates to the year 1986-87. The issue involved in this case is the inclusion of a turnover of Rs. 10,87,632 relating to freight charges along with the value of gas and assessed to tax in the suo motu revision order of the Joint Commissioner.2. In the first appeal, the appellant contended before the appellate authority that gas filled in cylinders has been sold at ex-factory price, that for reasons of safety, caution and convenience, as per the request of the customers, the lorry hire charges, for despatch of gas cylinders and freight charges incurred for getting back the empty gas cylinders, are collected from the customers by billing for the expenses in a separate invoice. During hearing, it was contended by the authorised representative of the appellant that the commodity, namely, gas sold by the appellant is a hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)138STC397Tribunal
1. Petition on being called upon today hearing the both sides the Tribunal ordered as follows : 2. All the above tax appeal cases can be disposed of by a common judgment, because they raise a common issue, namely, whether cotton received by the assessees are in reality purchases or loan transactions.3. Earlier, for the assessment year 1986-87, final orders of assessment were made on March 3, 1988 assessing the total and taxable turnover as Rs. 6,27,36,286 and Rs. 3,58,569 respectively. This assessment year is concerned in Tax Appeal Case No. 3191 of 1997 (T.C. No. 514 of 1995-HC). For the assessment year 1987-88, final orders were passed on January 3, 1989 determining the total and taxable turnovers as Rs. 8,71,68,874 and Rs. 5, 11,95,751 respectively and this assessment year is concerned in Tax Appeal Case No. 3190 of 1997 (T.C. No. 513 of 1995-HC). For the assessment year 1989-90, final orders were passed on November 27, 1990 determining the total and taxable turnover as Rs. 13,91,8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)134STC292Tribunal
1. This tax appeal case is against the order of the Joint Commissioner (SMR) of Commercial Taxes, Chennai in Ref. No. M2/9025/92 dated February 26, 1993. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows : 2. The assessing authority in TNGST No. 208826/89-90 dated September 15, 1989, passed orders by determining the provisional assessment by disallowing the claim of exemption with reference to the purchases from M/s. Rekha Distributors for the months of April and May 1989. The assessing authority held that M/s. Rekha Distributors were only bill traders and therefore it was proposed to disallow the exemption. The sales turnover disallowed was Rs. 2,24,543 for April, 1989 and Rs. 1,26,690 for the month of May, 1989. The assessee filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against the provisional assessment. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division, in the order passed on March 22, 1990 confirmed the order of the assessing aut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)134STC529Tribunal
1. Original Petition Nos. 1334 to 1336 of 2000 have been filed by one Salt Sales Corporation seeking to quash notices issued by the first respondent seeking to revise orders of assessment for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 which were completed on July 17, 1997 and August 31, 1998 respectively. Similarly O.P. No. 1336 of 2000 is to quash the notice to revise assessment for 1998-99, Similarly O.P: Nos. 1451 and 1452 of 2000 have been filed by one Indra Kumar Trading Corporation challenging notices dated October 5, 2000 seeking to revise assessments for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. In all the cases the notices state that the goods maka poha in the case of Salt Sales Corporation and the goods maka poha and pappad in the case of Indra Kumar Trading Corporation are liable to be taxed at 12 per cent till July 16, 1996 and at 16 per cent from July 17, 1996 on the basis that the goods were branded food products. The notices also refer to a clarification issued by the second respondent under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2004)134STC46Tribunal
1. This appeal is against the order of the Joint Commissioner dated January 31, 1983 in his suo motu revision Ref. No. 01/1494/78, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who reversed the order of the assessing authority for the assessment year 1973-74. The appellants are dealers in staple fibre yarn. In the original assessment dated March 29, 1976, the assessees were given exemption for a turnover of Rs. 17,08,500 of export sales. But, when the accounts were rechecked, it was found that the assessee did not effect any export of staple fibre yarn for the abovesaid turnover, but had sold the yarn to registered exporters--M/s. Yarn Syndicate Ltd., and Keshavlal Talakchand, Bombay, and they were not entitled to claim exemption as they did not export the yarn. Therefore, notice was issued to the assessee proposing to levy tax on a turnover of Rs. 17,08,500. The assessee, while filing the objections, admitted the liability on a turnover of Rs. 8,02,500 under the Central S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)125STC447Tribunal
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, pag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)124STC695Tribunal
1. All these miscellaneous petitions have been filed to condone the delay of 89 days in preferring the tax revision case. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that by the Deputy Commissioner that the orders were received on September 30, 1999 and was circulated to the Law Officer on March 23, 2000 and after getting his opinion, sanction was granted on May 30, 2000 and only thereafter, the papers were sent for filing the tax revision case and therefore, it has resulted in the delay of 89 days in filing the revision case. The respondent has entered appearance in these matters through their counsel Thiru Krishnaswamy. The learned counsel for the respondents Thiru Krishnaswamy raised two objections for these miscellaneous petitions and they are that the conditions of Form VI for filing the revisions were not followed when the revisions were filed and secondly the delay also is beyond 180 days and this Tribunal has no powers to condone the delay. The learned Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sales Tax Tribunal STT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)122STC70Tribunal
1. These two tax revision cases filed by the Revenue relate only to the correctness of the penalty imposed by the assessing authority at Rs. 7,029 under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in his original order of assessment and a penalty of Rs. 14,057 under Section 12(5)(iii) of the TNGST Act in his revised order of assessment. Simple as it may appear, the conduct and disposal of the appeals has consumed more time and confusion than they really deserve.First, we will narrate the facts.2. The respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of opthalmic instruments.For the year 1987-88, they reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 48,25,098.32 and Rs. 3,04,300 respectively. For good and valid reasons, the assessing authority rejected the return and accounts as incorrect and incomplete and made a best judgment assessment on January 9, 1989.After considering the objections of the assessee, the final assessment was as follows : 3. It will be useful to notice the r...
Tag this Judgment!