9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner as per the clarification of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in acts cell-VI/13234/2001 dated April 20, 2001, without going into the merits of the case, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the appeal, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without insisting upon the period of limitation. - W.P. No. 26280 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2007 - MANIKUMAR S. , J. ORDER:- S. MANIKUMAR J. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned records of the respondent in TNGST/ 0902571/2004-05 dated October 16, 2006 and direct the respondent to grant concessional rate of tax at three per cent on the turnover of Rs. 19,57,784 covered by form XVII declarations in view of the settled principles of law as laid down by the first Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Sree Murugan Engineering Products v. Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore reported in [2006] 148 STC 419 and in the case of Maruthi Handling Equipments v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer reported in [2007] 7 VST 261 and also to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnover, the proposal contained in the notice is confirmed. Sale against form XVII: They have stated that the air-handling units were supplied to pharmaceutical industries where the manufacturing take place in sterile clean air only under the supervision of Drug Controller of India; that air-handling units become part and parcel of pharmaceutical machinery and it is not for human comfort, that they are submitted declaration forms for a value of Rs. 18,56,484 and thus submitted all declaration forms. According to them, airhandling unit provides sterile clean air and it is part and parcel of pharmaceutical machinery. They have themselves admitted that the buyers have not used the air-handling units in their manufacturing activity. Goods can be purchased against form XVII for use in manufacture or for use as packing materials or as capital goods. The buyers can only buy the capital goods that has been enumerated in the Eighth Schedule to the Act. They cannot purchase other capital goods against form XVII. The air-handling units is not either raw materials for the buyers or one of the capital goods mentioned in Eighth Schedule to the Act and hence, they cannot buy the same against fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, dated April 20, 2001, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessing officer proceeds to take a different stand in the assessment order from the stand already taken in the notice, a fresh notice is required to be given to the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that in the absence of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Placing reliance on the decisions of this court and the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not the duty of the seller to enquire whether the goods purchased under form C will be used in accordance with the certificate of registration and that it is not its duty to enquire the purpose for which the goods purchased will be put to use. As regards the contention of the labour bills produced by the petitioner for a value of Rs. 3,41,038 and delivery challan to give M/s. Blue Star Ltd., they relate to the above charges collected by the petitioner and the transaction is nothing but pure labour work without involving any transfer of materials from the petitioner to its customers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith all the cases and it is suffice to consider the Division Bench judgments of this court and examine whether the same are applicable to the facts of the case. In Premier Electro-Mechanical Fabricators v. State of Madras reported in [1968] 22 STC 269, this court held as follows (at page 270 of STC): What section 3(3) enacts is that, notwithstanding what is contained in sub-section (2), a dealer is entitled to the concessional rate as a matter of right, provided he satisfies the requisites of that sub-section. The requisites are three-fold: (1) The goods, which are the subject-matter of sale, should be those mentioned in the First Schedule, (2) the sale must be to another dealer and (3) the goods sold should be for the use by the purchaser as component parts of any other goods mentioned in the First Schedule, which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale. If these requisites are satisfied, the lower rate of tax under sub-section (3) will apply. So far as the first requisite is concerned, the assessing officer himself has treated the goods sold as falling within the First Schedule. It was only on that basis he charged three per cent. There is no dispute about the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST Act and accordingly, (1)Reported as Karthik Electric Controls v. Commercial Tax Officer [2008] 15 VST 450 (Mad.) quashed the impugned order passed by the assessing authority, as one without jurisdiction. On consideration of the facts of this case and in the light of the judgments referred to above, I am of the opinion that the issue is covered by decisions of this court and the Supreme Court and it has been consistently held that the seller who receives a declaration in form XVII issued under section 3(3) of the Act, is confined to making sure that the declaration has been duly filled in and signed by the purchaser/dealer and that the forms given to the seller is the one prescribed and obtained from the prescribed authority. The seller is under no further obligation to enquire into whether the buyer is engaged in the process of manufacture and if so, whether the goods purchased from the seller are put to use as the component part for the product manufactured by the buyer, or a machinery mentioned in the Eighth Schedule is utilised by the purchaser for more than five years as contemplated under section 3(5) of the TNGST Act. The impugned revised order passed by the assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
