9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequently declare the clarification of the second respondent dated March 31, 1994 in Letter No. Acts Cell-I/31157/94 and the subsequent proceedings dated October 8, 2001 in Letter No. Acts Cell-I/20470/2001 as illegal and also violative of sections 5(1) and 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. 2.. The petitioners state that they are manufacturers of machinery and components. They purchased spare and components against form XVII, availing concessional rate of tax under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The goods so purchased were used in the manufacturing of machineries and components and the manufactured goods were directly exported. For the assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd respondent under section 28-A of the Act, this special Tribunal has already held in O.P. Nos. 1334 to 1336 of 2000, etc., dated January 25, 2001 (Salt Sales Corporation v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [2004] 134 STC 529) that section 28-A is perfectly valid and intravires the Constitution of India. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has upheld the levy only following the various courts decisions and not the clarification dated October 8, 2001, as stated by the petitioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has merely expressed that the second respondent has also clarified that there can be a levy under section 3(4) for export sales also. In a similar case in O.P. No. 544 of 2001 dated August 20, 2001 (Elgi Equipments v. Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the concessional rate of tax already paid under subsection (3). The exception is only in respect of despatch to a place outside the State as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The term in any other manner would include export sales also. In view of the clear position of law in section 3(4), we have no hesitation to say that export sale attracts levy of tax under section 3(4). The contentions of the petitioners in this regard fail. 5.. With regard to clarifications issued by the second respondent this Special Tribunal has already given the following findings and directions, in O.P. Nos. 1334 to 1336 of 2000, etc., dated January 25, 2001 (Salt Sales Corporation v. Deputy Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by the second respondent for holding that levy of tax under section 3(4) of the Act is proper. We have perused the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. A perusal of the order shows that the appellate authority has referred to various courts decisions and finally says as follows: Respectfully following the above decisions, I hold that the levy of tax at one per cent under section 3(4) is proper. The appellate authority further proceeds to say, I find that the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the clarification issued in Acts Cell-I/20470/2001 dated October 8, 2001 has clarified that the levy of tax under section 3(4) can be levied for export sales also. He has relied on the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
