9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent/Assessing Officer, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('TNGST Act'). In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the second respondent, viz., the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 05.04.2006, by which, the clarification sought for by the petitioner was not granted, and it was held that, additional sales tax liability of an Agent, is independent of the liability of its principal. 3. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier, and filed W.P.No.1358 of 2006, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 09.12.2005, and to direct the Commissioner to pass orders on the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.11.2005 in accordance with law and pass order thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.1558 of 2006 is also closed." 4. Thus, in terms of the above direction, the second respondent was required to consider the petitioner's representation, wherein, the petitioner sought for clarification. On such direction being issued, the petitioner filed written submissions on 20th March, 2006. The petitioner, apart from the factual issues raised, placed reliance on a clarification issued in favour of M/s.Haldia Petro Chemicals on 14.01.2003. The petitioner furnished tabulated formats, in the written submission, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l sales tax. The assessee took the matter on appeal, but, without success. The matter was then taken before the Tribunal, contending that, their turnover included the turnover relating to two of their principals, each of whose turnover was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, therefore, their principals were not liable to pay additional tax, and if their principals were not liable to pay additional tax, the assessees were not also liable to pay additional tax. On the facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that, it is not open to the assessee therein to contend that their total turnover, comprised of the turnover, relating to their two principals, whose total turnover did not exceed Rs. 10,00,000/- each, and since their principals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, was the subject matter of challenge. In the said case, the principal was outside the State of Tamil Nadu, and the provision was struck down. The paragraphs are as hereunder:- " 27. To give effect to the said intention, we proceed to hold that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the principal Act, namely Act 14 of1970 is ultra vires and should stand deleted. We make it clear that we are striking down only clause (a) of section 2(1). We also make it clear that under section 2 (2) and 2 (3) the intention of the legislature not to pass on the burden of additional sales tax to the consumers and the reference to prosecution, shall stand unaltered. So far as section 2 (1) (aa) as amended by Tam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
