9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id clarification would have retrospective effect from the years 1997-98 to 2000-01, the orders of the second respondent for the assessment years referred to above are liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), the second respondent, with a direction to take note of the latest clarification and pass appropriate orders. In respect of levy of 12 per cent tax on the turnover of ₹ 1,88,739, not supported by C forms, which is under challenge in W.P. No. 25039 of 2007, it is open to the petitioner to represent his appeal before the second respondent and on receipt of the same, he is directed to consider the appeal independently, within a period of four we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these cases is whether the sale of the product by the petitioner is coming within the purview of entry No. 6 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act, so as to have exemption from sales tax. In order to resolve that, the petitioner has to establish before the authorities that the product sold by the petitioner would come within the entry as stated therein. This is the vital aspect of the matter. The law is very well settled that if the assessee sold the goods, which come within the purview of entry No. 6 of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act, the petitioner is entitled to exemption on the turnover of the goods. It is for the petitioner to establish before the assessing officer with the necessary materials that the goods are exempted, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the orders of the second respondent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Salem, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions. The main contention of the petitioner is that the finding given by the second respondent with regard to the liability at 16 per cent on the turnover representing the sales of tetra plain milk is illegal. The petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent has failed to consider the directions given by this court in W.P. Nos. 23095 and 23096 of 2006 dated July 20, 2006 See page 184 infra.. It is also contended that the sale of raw milk made bacteriafree by pasteurisation method and sold as plain milk in tetra pack is similar to milk packed in polythene film sachet and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilk packed in polythene film sachet, and is eligible for exemption under entry No. 27(i) of Part B of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959 and the said clarification would have retrospective effect from the years 1997-98 to 2000-01, the orders of the second respondent for the assessment years referred to above are liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), the second respondent, with a direction to take note of the latest clarification dated July 30, 2007 in D. Dis. Acts. Cell. II/24252/07 (Clarification No. 73 of 2007) and pass appropriate orders, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to represent their case, within a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
