2015 (7) TMI 1426 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Capital goods - other goods (input, packing materials) - respondent has not followed the settled law and the interpretation for said goods made by the respondent being totally arbitrary has to be decided by the appellate authority - HELD THAT - The respondent having miserably failed to follow the above said two legal positions, had also decided the two other issues with regard to issue relating to capital goods and other goods input, packing materials. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was right is saying that the first two issues relating to the cancellation of the registration certificate with retrospective effect, which is covered in a reported decision in JINSASAN DISTRIBUTORS VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (CT) 2013 (4) TMI 615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and one another issue relating to selling dealers not filed their manual returns and not paid taxes in their assessment circle and for the fault on the part of the dealers, the petitioner mulcted with tax along with penalty has to be covered in the decision SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) 2013 (4) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . But the issue relating to capital goods and other goods input, packing materials, have to be gone into by the appellate authority. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain these Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned order by Assistant Commissioner (CT), Perundurai regarding cancellation of registration certificate, issues related to capital goods, input, and packing materials.

Analysis:
The Writ Petitions were filed against the impugned order by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Perundurai. The petitioner's counsel argued that out of the four issues, two had already been decided by the Assessment Officer and covered by previous court decisions. The cancellation of registration certificates with retrospective effect and the issue of selling dealers not filing Form-I returns had been addressed in prior cases. However, the issues concerning capital goods and other goods like input and packing materials were not appropriately handled by the respondent, and the interpretation was deemed arbitrary. The petitioner requested these issues to be decided by the appellate authority.

The learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent failed to follow the legal positions on the issues related to capital goods and other goods. While the first two issues had precedents in previous court decisions, the issues regarding capital goods and other goods needed further examination by the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the Writ Petitions without delving into the case's merits. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file appeals, and no costs were imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.