9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97 dated April 2, 1998 passed by the first respondent. 3.. Original Petition No. 453 of 2001 is filed by the petitionerM/s. Anamallais Engineering, Pollachi to call for the proceedings of the second respondent in letter No. 14397/B2/2000 dated November 30, 2000 and set aside the same and direct the second respondent to pass orders granting exemption to the petitioner, as was granted in G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue Department dated January 17, 1972 either under section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or in exercise of the executive powers under article 162 of the Constitution of India. 4.. Original Petition No. 454 of 2001 is filed by the same petitioner to direct the second respondent to remit the taxes imposed upon and payable by the petitioners of Rs. 17,34,820 on the sales of bus bodies made to exporters during the assessment year 1988-89 vide proceedings in TNGST/243051/88-89 dated December 30, 1989 of the first respondent. 5.. Original Petition No. 71 of 2002 is filed by M/s. Brij and Associates, Chennai for the very same prayer made by the petitioners in O.P. No. 406 of 2001. 6.. Original Petition No. 73 of 2002 is filed by the same petitioner to dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Coimbatore and T.C.R. No. 2169 of 1997 filed by the State and partly allowed T.C.R. No. 1997 of 1997. On August 9, 2000, one of the petitioners herein-M/s. Automotive Coaches and Components Ltd., Gummidipoondi, sent a petition to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments, Chennai-9 and similar petitions dated June 23, 2000 and October 10, 2000 were sent by Tvl. Anamallais Engineering, Coach Builders, Pollachi and Brij and Associates, Chennai respectively. The Secretary to Government rejected the request made by the petitioners by the impugned letter No. 14397/B2/2000 dated November 30, 2000. Challenging the said order and reviving their request for remission of taxes and penalties, the petitioners have filed these seven original petitions. 11.. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Thiru N. Sriprakash has mainly relied on article 14 of the Constitution of India and contended that the benefit granted by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue Department, dated January 17, 1972 should also be extended to the petitioners and similarly placed body building works. Reportd as L.G. Balakrishnan Brothers Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was dismissed and also T.C.R. Reportd as L.G. Balakrishnan Brothers Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2001] 123 STC 508. See [2001] 123 STC 473. No. 2169 of 1997 filed by the Revenue. In T.C.R. No. 1997 of 1997 filed by M/s. L.G. Balakrishnan Brothers questioning the tax, this Special Tribunal restored the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner levying tax on a turnover of Rs. 79,79,925 at 15 per cent and Rs. 33,33,498 at 8 per cent and levy of penalty under section 12(5)(iii) alone was deleted. Now, the petitioners, after filing the petitions before the Secretary to Government, have filed these seven original petitions challenging the order passed by the learned Secretary to Government and for the very same prayers. 13.. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hochtief Gammon, Appellant v. State of Orissa AIR 1975 SC 2226 wherein it was held: "The executive have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant considerations. . They cannot avoid scrutiny by courts by failing to give reasons. If they give reasons and they are not good reasons, the court can direct them to reconsider the matter i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition is not satisfied, the benefit of the G.O. will have to be given to all those persons who have manufactured the end-products out of the raw materials which had already suffered tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959." 15.. All these decisions are to the effect that any order passed by an executive should be a considered order deciding the questions raised therein and further benefits, if extended in public interests, such benefits should be extended to all those who are similarly placed. On the strength of these decisions, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned letter dated November 30, 2000 issued by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, has to be set aside. 16.. Learned Additional Advocate-General for the Government has stated that if any considered order is passed after due consideration of the question raised, merely because such consideration has not been stated in the order itself, it cannot be said that the order is totally invalid. Learned Additional Advocate-General further contended that the learned secretary, on considering the issues raised by the petitioners, had passed that order and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar or illegal manner." In the case of Choksi Tube Company Ltd. v. Union of India (1998) 77 ECR 38 (SC), at page 40, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held: "Having regard to the determined stand of the respondents not to state their case on paper, we must assume that there was neither any public interest nor any exceptional nature involved and that others placed in circumstances similar to that in which the said mills were placed must have the same benefit as was advanced to the said mills." In Faridabad Ct. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services (1997) 7 SCC 752, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held: "Article 14 cannot be invoked in cases where wrong orders are issued in favour of others. Wrong orders cannot be perpetuated with the help of article 14 on the basis that such wrong orders were earlier passed in favour of some other persons and that, therefore, there will be discrimination against others if correct orders are passed against them. The benefit of the exemption notification, in the present case, cannot, therefore, be extended to the petitioner on the ground that such benefit has been wrongly extended to others." In All India Skins Hides Tanners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment should remit the taxes paid by them earlier. As rightly contended, the prayer in these original petitions are for refund of the taxes and penalties already paid. When the law requires similar order has to be passed in respect of other dealers including the petitioners herein, then only they are entitled to have similar benefits. The Government of Tamil Nadu have not granted any such exemption in the case of similarly placed body building works. What was granted under G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue, dated January 17, 1972 is an exemption, only in favour of Sundaram Industries. Such exemptions cannot be applied to others like the petitioners herein. 18.The next prayer of the petitioner is to apply such exemption for remission of tax, as in the case of Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai by invoking article 162 of the Constitution of India. Article 162 deals with "extend of executive power of State" and such power depends upon the Legislature of the State to make law to satisfy the assessees like the petitioners herein. In the instant case, the executive passed G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue Department, dated January 17, 1972 and similar Government orders have not been passed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
