9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1990 (9) TMI 336 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. the Department has not made out any case to interfere with the well-considered order of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 11601 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 5-11-2009 - RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K. AND SUNDRESH M.M. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J. This writ petition is filed against the order dated October 5, 1999 in C.T.A. No. 25 of 1994 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore. The facts: (i) The assessee, Tvl. The Protein Products of India Limited, engaged in the manufacture of ossein at their factory at Sandvanallah (Ootacamund). For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessing officer finally determined the total and taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs. Nil. Subsequently it was found that the turnover in a sum of Rs. 31,96,736 relating to despatch of ossein to Cochin was to fulfil the orders placed by Tvl. Rallis (India) Limited (hereinafter briefly referred to as RIL), Bombay and hence not eligible for exemption from tax as branch transfer. After due formality, a revised assessment order was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the precedent cannot be applied without discussing the fact. A single variance in a fact and one additional factor in a particular case makes lot of difference between the cited case and the case on hand, which is a well-settled principle of law. That has not been considered by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that there cannot be any exception to the proposition of law put forth by the Government Pleader. But the fact remains that the assessee is one and the same and the activity of the assessee is one and there is no change. What was the activity for the periods 1974-75 and 1975-76 was the activity of the assessee for the relevant assessment year 1973-74 also, which aspect has been very elaborately considered by the Tribunal, which followed the judgment of this court in Rallis India Limited's case [1994] 92 STC 325. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record. As far as the factum that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on remand by this court has confirmed the order of the assessing authority, there is no dispute. The one and only point that has been stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , August 18, 1973 (173 bags), August 20, 1973 (175 bags), August 22, 1973 (175 bags), August 27, 1973 (150 bags), August 28, 1973 (150 bags), August 29, 1973 (150 bags), September 1, 1973 (150 bags), September 3, 1973 (150 bags), September 7, 1973 (150 bags), September 11, 1973 (150 bags), September 11, 1973 (170 bags), September 11, 1973 (169 bags). In all a total of 3,275 bags were sent to the branch of the assessee and held there as stock against which 1168 bags were supplied on September 12, 1973. Subsequently, similar accumulation of despatches of sale had been effected as under: 15.09.1973 (667 bags) 19.08.1973 (1340 bags) 28.09.1973 (834 bags) 10.12.1973 (2500 bags) 31.01.1974 (2000 bags) 20.03.1974 (3686 bags) Thus regular despatch of goods manufactured in the normal course of their business activity was sent and even as on the date of closure of financial year, there was a balance held as stock. In such circumstances whether the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in concluding that in the context of the movement of goods from the State of Tamil Nadu to Cochin in order to fulfil the contract of supply of 100 tonnes of ossein in total is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory. For example in the month of August 13 despatches were effected, in September 22 despatches were made, in October 5 despatches were made, in November 14 despatches were made, in December 4 despatches were made, in January 11 despatches were made, in February 5 despatches were made and in March 5 despatches were made. Thus there is no consistency or link between the export made by Rallis India Limited and the despatches of goods carried out by the appellant's company. The set of facts held for the 'year', from the foregoing analysis is the similar one as decided by the High Court of Madras in [1994] 92 STC 325 in the case of Rallis India Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu which is as under (in pages 325-326 of 92 STC): Certain turnover of the dealer representing the value of ossein transferred from its Uthagamandalam factory to its Cochin office was brought to tax as representing inter-State sales, treating the movement of goods as having been occasioned by purchase orders received from RIL, Bombay, the dealer having filed C forms in respect of the transfers under protest. The assessment was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and on further appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
