2002 (3) TMI 898 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification dated November 1, 1982 regarding exemption of goods under the TNGST Act.
2. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in [1999] 114 STC 1; (1998) 5 SCC 349 on the taxation of goods.
3. Validity of the Special Tribunal's decision and the petitioner's challenge to it.

Issue 1:
The petitioner purchased goods from the T.N.E.B. and dispatched them outside Tamil Nadu. The assessing officer taxed the goods, determining them as machinery under item No. 41D of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act. The petitioner claimed exemption under the notification dated November 1, 1982. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the tax assessment, considering the goods as machinery and applying section 7A(1)(c) for goods dispatched outside the state. The petitioner, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, challenged the assessment before the Special Tribunal, which dismissed the petitions. The High Court affirmed the finality of the earlier orders, stating that the petitioner's silence and failure to challenge the Appellate Tribunal's decision precluded a fresh cause of action based on subsequent legal developments.

Issue 2:
The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court judgment in [1999] 114 STC 1; (1998) 5 SCC 349 supported his case for tax exemption. However, the High Court held that the judgment did not apply directly to the petitioner's case, as it concerned iron scrap, not machinery as in this case. The court emphasized that the petitioner's goods were classified as machinery under item 41-D of the First Schedule, distinguishing them from the goods in the Supreme Court judgment. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that section 7-A(1)(c) was inapplicable based on the apex court's judgment.

Issue 3:
The High Court rejected the petitioner's plea to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the case, given the finality of the Appellate Tribunal's decision. The court upheld the Special Tribunal's ruling, emphasizing that the petitioner's failure to challenge the earlier decision through statutory revision precluded any reconsideration based on subsequent legal developments. The court dismissed the writ petitions, acknowledging the efforts of the petitioner's counsel but finding no grounds for relief. The connected W.M.P. Nos. 28775 and 28777 of 1998 were also closed without costs.