2017 (8) TMI 972 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption of Rotary Tiller from Levy of VAT - whether the petitioner is entitled for exemption, as their equipment has been described in Part B - Sl.No.1(ii)(17), being classified as Rotavator? - Held that - What is required to be seen by the Assessing officer is whether the Rotavator is a trade name or a trade mark and whether it is equivalent to a Rotary Tiller. A steel Almirah is colloquially referred to as Godrej, which infact is a trade mark of a premier company producing Steel Almirah - matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, who shall extend the benefit of exemption granted for the agricultural implement Rotavator - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment orders under Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for 2013-14 and 2014-15 - Entitlement for exemption under Part B - Sl.No.1(ii)(17) for equipment classified as Rotavator.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested assessment orders under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for 2013-14 and 2014-15, seeking exemption for equipment classified as Rotavator under Part B - Sl.No.1(ii)(17).

2. The petitioner argued that Rotavator is a commonly used term in farming circles, while the generic name for the equipment is Rotary Tiller. They provided evidence, including objections and work orders from the Agricultural Engineering department, to support their claim for exemption from Value Added Tax.

3. The Assessing Officer, despite the petitioner's explanations, proposed to revise the assessment, stating that no specific notification exempted Rotary Tiller from Value Added Tax. The petitioner reiterated that Rotavator is a trade name, equivalent to Rotary Tiller, and should be considered as such for exemption purposes.

4. The Chief Engineer of the Agricultural Engineering department confirmed that subsidy for Rotary Tiller (Rotavator) is based on the basic cost, supporting the equivalence of the two terms. The court emphasized that the Assessing Officer lacks expertise to interpret such technical matters and should rely on competent authorities like the Agricultural Engineering department.

5. The court concluded that Rotary Tiller should be considered as Rotavator for exemption purposes, as certified by the Agricultural Engineering department. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, directing the extension of exemption benefits for the agricultural implement Rotavator. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.