9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority of law. Therefore, following the above-said decision, we find no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, for consideration in this revision - Decided against Revenue. - T. C. (R). No. 44 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Petitioner : Dr. Anita Sumanth Special Government Pleader (Taxes) ORDER (Made by R. Sudhakar, J.) This revision is filed by the Department as against the order dated 22.5.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai, in T.A.No.203 of 2008, raising the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is correct in interpreting the expression 'does not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as failed to appreciate that Sections 3(3) and 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 are not designed as charging provisions as evident from the non-obstante clause occurring at the beginning of Section 3(3) of the said Act? 2.1. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The respondent/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of electrical porcelain insulators. The total and taxable turnover of ₹ 10,25,58,024/- and ₹ 10,17,67,270/- respectively for the assessment year 2004-2005 was determined on 27.10.2006. The Assessing Officer arrived at the proportionate value of purchase made against Form XVII which were liable to tax under Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 at ₹ 10,08,60,743/- at 1%. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort issue involved in this case is whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the turnover in terms of Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 7. The issue involved in this revision is no longer res integra in view of the decision reported in M/s.Tube Investments of India Limited case, referred supra, 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 count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which may be either Parliamentary law or law made by the State legislature). (iii) Delegated Legislation (which may be in the form of rules made under the statute, regulations made 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
