9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ambiguity with regard to rate of tax payable by assessees and benefit of said ambiguity should be extended to assessees and not to Revenue Present court fully in agreement with holding that assessments in respect of respondent / assessee having been completed pursuant to order passed by Special Tribunal and tax at rate of 10% was also collected, Revenue was not justified in demanding tax at 16% by seeking to reopen concluded assessments by issuing clarification No ground to interfere with impugned order passed in writ petition Decided against revenue. - W. A. No. 1181 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - Sanjay Kaul, CJ And T. S. Sivagnanam, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V Haribabu Addl. Govt. Pleader. For the Respondent : No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total and taxable turnover of the respondent / assessee for the year 2002-2003 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNGST Act'). The respondent / assessee is a dealer in paper based decorative laminated sheets, which are received from other States and subjected to payment of tax at the point of first sale in the State. The product dealt with by the assessee is made up of paper and was being treated as paper based products. The first appellant issued a clarification under Section 28A of the TNGST Act with regard to rate of tax on paper based decorative laminated sheets clarifying that the product are taxable at 16% under Entry 8 (ii), Part-E of the First Schedule of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s where revised assessment orders were passed, since the reason for reopening the assessment by the Assessing Officer was based on the clarification issued by the first appellant, which is binding on the Assessing Officer. Thus, they contended that no useful purpose would be served by submitting a reply to the show cause notice proposing reopening of the assessment, since the clarification being issued by the Head of Department would undoubtedly bind the Assessing Officer, an officer subordinate to the first appellant. Thus, the validity of the clarification issued by the first appellant was subject matter of consideration in the batch of writ petitions. 6. It was argued by the respondent assessee that their assessments having been final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same and enhancing the rate of tax to 16%, no notice was issued. This submission was accepted and the said writ petition was allowed and the clarification dated 07.04.2007 was set aside by order dated 29.01.2008. It is, thereafter, the second clarification was issued on 30.05.2008 reiterating the earlier clarification and stating that the said product is taxable at 16% under Entry 8 (ii) of Part-E of the First Schedule and if the product is imported, it is taxable at 20% under Entry 9 of Eleventh Schedule. 9. The question which arose for consideration in the batch of cases was whether the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to entry made in the Central Excise Tariff, 1985, with regard to paper based decor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the decision rendered under the Central Excise Act has no relevance in interpreting the words ''plastic laminates'' as contained in the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Hajee P.Syed Mohammed (Decd) and Anr., reported in (1993) 91 STC 195, which also considered a similar issue with regard to description of paper as contained in entry 117 of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act and it was held that it is not only all comprehensive, but includes paper of all sorts and all kinds of paper even other than those illustrated or enumerated in the entry. 11. Further, the contention of the respondent / assessee was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly there was ambiguity with regard to rate of tax payable by the assessees for the paper based decorative laminated sheets and the benefit of the said ambiguity should be extended to the assessees and not to the Revenue. With these observations, the writ petitions were allowed. 13. We are fully in agreement with the view taken by the Writ Court holding that the assessments in respect of the respondent / assessee having been completed pursuant to an order passed by the Special Tribunal and the tax at the rate of 10% was also collected, the Revenue was not justified in demanding tax at 16% by seeking to reopen the concluded assessments by issuing a clarification based on the premise that the Hon'ble Supreme court, while interpreting an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
