2016 (4) TMI 1102 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Leviability of tax - as per Entry 69 of the Part C of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act 2006 - Petitioner s claim of exemption as per the Entry 17A of the Fourth Schedule was rejected by the first respondent, by stating that it is not applicable for industrial preservative, sold under the name Nipacides - Held that - in the interest of justice, the petitioner can be given an opportunity to putforth their case by producing necessary documents before the respondents, however, on payment of 75% of the tax calculated at the rate of 5%. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to tax assessment under TNVAT Act and CST Act for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing chemicals, including fungicides, challenged the tax assessment by the first respondent under the TNVAT Act and CST Act. The dispute arose when the first respondent rejected the petitioner's claim of exemption under Entry 17A of the Fourth Schedule, stating it was not applicable for the industrial preservative "Nipacides." The petitioner contended that "Nipacide" is a fungicide and therefore qualifies for exemption. The first respondent, however, held the petitioner liable to pay tax at 14.5%. The respondents argued that the product did not have a direct application for pest control but acted as a preservative and raw material for paints, not requiring a license under the Insecticides Act 1968. The petitioner argued for a lower tax rate of 5% under Part B of the First Schedule or exemption under Entry 67, asserting that fungicides do not fall under insecticides requiring registration. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the petitioner to present necessary documents and pay 75% of the tax calculated at 5% for a fresh decision by the first respondent.

The court noted that the petitioner should have the opportunity to present their case with necessary documents before the first respondent. The impugned orders were set aside on the condition that the petitioner pays 75% of the tax calculated at 5% within two weeks. The first respondent was directed to reconsider the matter, considering the documents provided by the petitioner and ensuring a fair hearing. The court emphasized that the first respondent should decide the matter independently of the previous orders. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and related matters were closed.