9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erpreting the expression does not sell the goods so manufactured occurring in sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as including not only intra state but also export sale? ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in invoking the principle of situs as envisaged in Explanation 3 (a) to Section 2 (n) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the purpose of interpretation of the expression does not sell the goods so manufactured as contained in sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act so as to bring it within the ambit of the said explanation? iii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - respectively for the assessment year 2001-02. The Assessing Officer called for the accounts and checked the same. On the basis of the result of inspection conducted in the place of business of the assessee on 13.3.2002, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 13,53,56,577/- and Rs. 13,37,71,544/- respectively and levied penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who sustained the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of levy of tax, but set aside the levy of penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this Revision is no longer res integra in view of the decision reported in (2010) 36 VST 67 (M/s.Tube Investments of India Limited V. State of Tamil Nadu), wherein, this Court, after relying upon number of decisions, held as follows: "32. When the underlining principles of the framers of the Constitution itself in respect of export sales was so very paramount, at the very outset, it should be held that the imposition of tax as provided under Section 3(4) to be applicable to such an export sale would run counter to such an intention of the Parliament, which cannot be countenanced. In other words, when the State lacks the legislative competence by virtue of the Constitutional embargo to levy any tax on export sale, the indirect creation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de under the statute, etc) (iv) Purely administrative or executive orders." Applying the said principles to the facts of this case, as in the hierarchy of law, the Constitution provision will supersede any conflicting statutory provision, we hold that the interpretation sought to be laid on behalf of the State, to hold that Section 3(4) will apply to the export sale of the assesses will run counter to the well laid legal principles referred to above and the same cannot be countenanced. 33. On these grounds itself, it can be held that there would be no scope for invoking Section 3(4) in regard to the export sales of the goods manufactured. " 9. The above-said decision of this Court has been followed by this Court in T.C.(A)Nos.38 and 39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
