2018 (3) TMI 1916 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of tax - EMU Oil - Government order in G.O.Ms.No.122 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department, dated 30 September 2009 - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether EMU Oil is a taxable commodity requires to be decided by the authority under the TNVAT Act. Even in the detention order, there is no clear indication as to how the check post authority has arrived at a conclusion that the EMU Oil is taxable under the TNVAT Act. We are therefore of the view that liberty should be given to the appellant to file revision petition before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner. Liberty is granted to the appellant to file a revision before the Joint Commissioner challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pennaiyar Bridge Check Post, which is impugned in the writ petition - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of EMU Oil for non-payment of tax.
2. Statutory liability for tax on EMU Oil under TNVAT Act, 2006.
3. Challenge to the detention order and tax assessment.
4. Interpretation of circulars and government orders related to tax exemption.
5. Jurisdiction to decide the tax liability of EMU Oil.
6. Granting liberty to file a revision petition before the Joint Commissioner.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the detention of EMU Oil by check post authorities due to alleged non-payment of tax during transportation. The appellant contended that there is no statutory liability to pay tax on EMU Oil under the TNVAT Act, citing circulars and a government order supporting tax exemption for poultry products, which the appellant argued includes EMU Oil. The single Judge's order did not address the appellant's contention regarding the tax liability of EMU Oil but directed payment of tax for release based on the detention order. The High Court noted the lack of clarity on how the check post authority determined the tax liability of EMU Oil and granted the appellant liberty to file a revision petition before the Joint Commissioner to challenge the order. The appellant was allowed to present evidence to support the absence of tax liability on EMU Oil, and the authority was directed to consider the factual circumstances and issue a detailed order. The potential refund of tax paid would be contingent on the Joint Commissioner's decision. The High Court disposed of the intra court appeal with directions for the revision petition to be processed within a specified timeframe, emphasizing that no statutory deposit was required if tax had already been paid.

This comprehensive analysis addresses the issues of detention, statutory liability for tax on EMU Oil, challenge to the detention order, interpretation of tax exemption provisions, jurisdiction to decide tax liability, and the granting of liberty to file a revision petition before the Joint Commissioner for further review and determination of tax liability on EMU Oil.