9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BAR ALI, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, AGP (Taxes) JUDGEMENT Per : R Sudhakar, J : The above tax revisions are preferred by the Department aggrieved against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai in T.A. Nos.4/03 and 99/06. T.C. (R) NO.30 OF 2014 : 2. The respondent assessee in this case is a dealer in rubber automobile spares and the assessment order relatable to the present case is for the period 1996-1997. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had purchased raw materials at concessional rate of tax against Form XVII Declaration and used the same for manufacture of goods for the purpose of export out of the country. Since the manufactured goods had not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the said assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal against which the assessee preferred further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the judgment of this Court in Tube Investment of India Limited - Vs - State of Tamil Nadu (36 VST 67), allowed the appeal and held as follows:- "(1) Liability under Section 3 (4) of TNGST Act : The appellant has purchased raw materials against form XVII declarations, utilised in manufacture and exported the finished goods. Section 3 (3) of TNGST Act entitles a dealer to purchase raw materials at concessional rate against Form XVII for manufacturing and sale. But if the finished goods is disposed of other than by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate 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 - Vs - B.M. Ashraf & Co. reported in 107 STC 571 where it was held that a sale deemed to be in the course of export under Section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, cannot be regarded as an intrastate sale? iv) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the export sale in question would come within the purview of Section 3 (4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act has already been considered by this Court in a batch of cases in Tube Investment of India Ltd. - Vs The State of Tamil Nadu (T.C. Nos.249/06, etc. - dated 08.10.2010) and submits that the cases on hand is squarely covered by the decision in Tube Investments case (supra). 8. In view of the said statement made by the learned Addl. Government Pleader (Taxes) that the ratio laid down in Tube Investments case (supra), is equally applicable to the cases on hand, following the said ratio, these tax case revisions are also liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
