9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and branches at different places including the one at Chennai. In respect of the returns filed for the assessment year 1994-95, the petitioner claimed exemption on the turnover relating to the sale of fish knitted fabrics. The second respondent herein, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai, rejected the plea of the assessee for exemption and levied tax and penalty, by his order dated June 28, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner placed reliance on the circular of the Special Commissioner dated September 16, 1995 in L. Dis. 147755/85 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sainet Private Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1984] 18 ELT 141 that the fish-knitted fabric is exempt under the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. By order dated October 22, 2002, the second respondent rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 5, 1998 and to direct the second respondent to consider the claim for exemption in the light of the law laid down by the apex court in the decision in Nylon Net Manufacturing Company v. Additional Sales Tax Officer reported in [2008] 16 VST 16; [1998] 9 SCC 98. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in its view in directing the petitioner to avail of an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal petition could not be taken up by the Tribunal. It is a matter of fact that the assessee did not seek any further clarification from the Tribunal to exclude the time taken for filing the original petition to enable the assessee to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. Having regard to the fact that the assessee had gone before the authority concerned invoking the remedy under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
