9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 1970 and 19th January, 1976 which is the time between the decisions pronounced in Pyarelal Malhotra v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer at [1970] 26 STC 416 (Mad.) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC) proper approach has not been made by the authorities concerned, and there is an element of discrimination so far as the writ petitioners herein are concerned. While arguing the instant writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court, item 4-A of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, sections 4, 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and also the single point suffrage of tax. In these three writ petitions, it is the iron and steel that is inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril, 1977; letter No. 92/XVI-1/78-12, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 20th July, 1979; G.O. Ms. No. D-103, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 24th January, 1981; and G.O.P.S. No. 311, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 13th March, 1982 were also brought to the notice of the court. Notification II of G.O.P.S. No. 311, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 13th March, 1982 was also stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. M.S. round which has been valued at Rs. 15,84,055.22 was manufactured out of iron scraps purchased from dealers within the State, and it forms part of the proceedings of the Joint Commerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued to the dealers proposing to assess them on the turnover of iron and steel and objections if any, were invited from the dealers against the proposal. The dealers are therefore, at liberty to produce any evidence, connected to the issue for the consideration of the assessing authority. They have not chosen to bring out the factual and legal aspects which differentiate their case from Malhotra's case [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC). The burden of proof is on them. In fact, they were requested to appear in person on 25th May, 1976 and present their case. They have not responded to the call. The silence of the dealers for about 3 months since the receipt of the notice of assessment clearly indicates that they have no case against the proposed assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15................." Referring to the above, the contention that is raised on behalf of the petitioners by their learned counsel is that the sum and substance of the above Government orders relating to "waiver" has not been followed. It is common ground that assessment order dated 28th June, 1976 is involved in these writ petitions, and the subject-matter of these proceedings are iron and steel, pending disposal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Under these circumstances, when a contention is raised that proper appreciation has not been (made) with respect to the period in between 10th April, 1970-judgment rendered by the Madras High Court, and the reversal of the said judgment by the Supreme Court on 19th January, 1976 by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en caused to them or not if there had been any non-application of the strict spirit and tenor of the Government orders, and this Court is of the view that no prejudice has been caused. The writ petitions are, therefore, devoid of merits and hence they are liable to be dismissed. So far as the stay is concerned that the parties should not be allowed to collect the tax that had been fixed by the authorities, this Court is of the view that it is for the petitioners to move the appropriate forum, viz., the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, for the said remedy; and if stay is granted by this Court, certainly the said order amounts to interference of the discretion vested with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The contention of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed." Apart from agreeing with the reasoning given by the learned Judge we would like to observe that as there is a revision provided under section 33 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the appellant herein can approach the said authority by way of a revision as against the order passed by the assessing authority. In this connection, we would like to refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Nandhi Rerolling Mills P. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) WLR 59 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315. Following the principle laid down in the above two decisions, we are clearly of the opinion that as against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
