9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.S.Ramasamy, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3. Though the fourth respondent has been served and his name is printed in the cause list, none appears for the fourth respondent. 2.The short issue, which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the clarification issued by the Commissioner dated 07.04.2006, is valid and proper. The impugned clarification reads as follows: "COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT From To Dr.T.Prabhakara Rao, I.A.S., Tvl.Surbhit Impex Private Ltd., Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 9, Hafizan Building, 5th Floor, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 129/131, Kazi Sayed Street, Mumbai-400 003. ----------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the petitioner. 4.The contention raised by the petitioner is absolutely flawed for more than one reason. Firstly, as per the terms and conditions of auction as stipulated by the second respondent/Customs Department, on receipt of payment of sale value along with taxes and duties, delivery order will be issued indicating the delivery period and the period of delivery will be 7 calendar days counted from the date of Delivery Order by MSTC/date of release order by the Principal/Seller, which is the Customs Department. Before participating in the auction, the petitioner is required to inspect the material and satisfy by himself and no plea or misunderstanding and ignorance can be pleaded. 5.With regard to the submission of bids, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... participated in the E-auction from Mumbai and therefore, this occasioned the movement of goods and therefore, it is an interstate sale. This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that though the petitioner participated in the E-auction, which is probably to facilitate the bidding process, the materials were inspected by the petitioner within the control of the Customs House, Chennai and the goods were delivered on payment of full sale value including taxes at Chennai. Merely because, one of the officers of the Customs Department, issued a receipt to the petitioner accepting 4% of the tax, that would not prevent the Commercial Taxes Department to take appropriate steps to recover the tax payable in the State of Tamil Nadu. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
