1980 (11) TMI 141 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the purchase turnover of raw hides and skins under entry 7(a) of the Second Schedule.

Analysis:
The case involved a petition to revise an order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of the purchase turnover of raw hides and skins under entry 7(a) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing officer reopened the assessment under section 16 of the Act, bringing a turnover of Rs. 6,85,014 to tax at 3 per cent. The petitioners contended that section 16 did not cover the case, but their appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were unsuccessful, leading to the tax revision case. The learned counsel for the petitioners acknowledged that the tanned hides and skins were sold in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, hence not subjected to tax under the Act. The main issue was whether the assessment of the purchase turnover of raw hides and skins was legal under entry 7(a) of the Second Schedule. The Court referred to previous decisions and concluded that the assessment was legal, citing the decision in Gordon Woodroffe & Company (Madras) Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu. The Court also examined the earlier decision in M.M. Anwaraulla AM. Ghouse and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu but found it did not contradict the conclusion in the present case. The Court held that there was no error of law in the Tribunal's order, ultimately dismissing the tax revision case.

This judgment highlights the application of section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in assessing the purchase turnover of raw hides and skins under entry 7(a) of the Second Schedule. It emphasizes the legal aspect of the assessment and the interpretation of relevant provisions in light of previous judicial decisions. The Court's analysis focused on the legality of the assessment and the consistency of its decision with prior rulings, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's order. The judgment provides clarity on the tax treatment of specific goods under the Act and underscores the importance of legal precedent in determining tax liabilities.