9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 28.03.2008. 2. The petitioner, in all these writ petitions, is a dealer engaged in the manufacturing of Bitumen Emulsion and registered under the provisions of erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter will be referred to as the TNGST Act ) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the file of the respondents. 3. In W.P.No.5510 of 2008, the petitioner challenged Clarification No.195/2005, dated 15.11.2005 in and by which the first respondent issued a clarification stating that Bitumen Emulsion is taxable at 16% under Entry No.7(v) of Part-E of First Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959 and if imported, it is taxable at 20% under Entry No.9 of Eleventh Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959. 4. In W.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Eleventh Schedule. Therefore, it is clarified that Bitumen Emulsion sold by the petitioner is taxable at 12% under residuary Entry No.40 of Part-D of First Schedule to the TNGST Act. It was further pointed out that there is contravention between the clarification issued on 13.02.2002 and 15.11.2005 for the same commodity. Further, it was pointed out that their assessment year was 2003-2004 and hence the clarification dated 13.11.2005 i.e., issued during the year 2001-2002 will bind and in this regard, it was brought to the notice of the second respondent that in respect of another company, manufacturing the same products, namely, Hindustan Golas Limited, Irrungattukottai, Kancheepuram District, a joint-venture of Hindus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer has to ultimately take an independent decision and it will always open to the dealer to canvass before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has to consider the materials placed before him and all matters can be canvassed before the Assessing Officer and he will arrive at an independent decision. 10. Further more, in the written instructions, the justification for issuing such a clarification has not been brought out. Neither the person at whose instance the clarification was issued nor what are the materials, which was the basis for issuing such a clarification, has been disclosed. Hence, it has to be held that the impugned clarification has been mechanically applied to the cases of the petitioner, de hors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
