9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xable turnover of Rs. 46,03,912 and Rs. 26,19,764, respectively, by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1978-79 by an order dated February 25, 1980. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while upholding the assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act had remanded the appeal in respect of surcharge levied under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 and the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971, for examination to find out the sales of iron and steel scrap which will not be liable to additional sales tax or surcharge in view of the decision of this Court in State of Madras v. Raman & Co. [1974] 33 STC 1. On remand, the assessing officer has held that the goods dealt with by the appellant-Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Second Schedule and that worn out automobile parts cannot be treated as iron scrap. After issuing notice to the assessee and hearing the objections of the assessee, the Joint Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that the assessee was selling concerned items of the automobile vehicles and as such it is "dealer" and consequently held that in so far as the condemned articles are concerned, they were automobile parts and that the sale bills also will clearly show the description of the goods sold. The Joint Commissioner has further held that in order to get exemption as second sales the assessee should prove that the goods in question had suffered single point tax at previous stage and that the contention that the article made of iron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority that the goods were sold in lots and by weight only and not by numbers. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the findings of the Joint Commissioner stating that the articles are condemned articles. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Joint Commissioner has been prejudiced because of the cash bills and the description of the goods sold whereas they were sold in lots and by weight and not by numbers. 4.. Per contra, Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), contends that the goods sold by the assessee will come under entry 3 of the First Schedule to the Act, 1959, as "spare parts" of the motor vehicles, that the appellant/assessee has to prove that the goods sold were on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view, that these goods cannot be brought under entry 3 of the First Schedule to the Act, 1959. In State of Madras v. Raman & Co. [1974] 33 STC 1 a Division Bench of this Court has held that any purchaser of such condemned articles could not have entertained any idea of putting those articles to any further use. A reference to an unreported decision in T.C. No. 17 of 1964 has been referred to and in that case, certain condemned machineries which cannot be put to use had been sold which was claimed to be scrap iron falling within the Second Schedule of the Act. In that case, it has been held that any condemned articles made of iron fall within the description of iron scrap in item 4 of the Second Schedule. Though the question arose before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
