9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002, W.M.P.Nos.65510, 65513, 65516 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2017 - The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam For the Petitioner : M/s. C. Uma For the Respondent : Mr. E. Manoharan, Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai ORDER Heard M/s. C. Uma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. E. Manoharan, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent. 2. The petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions, praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the orders passed by the first respondent, dated 07.11.2002 and 08.11.2002 respectively, insofar as it directs payment of 12% sales tax on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cum auction sale and the petitioners in all these cases have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions unconditionally, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the case squarely falls within the mischief of Section 3 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Therefore, the demand for payment of value added tax under the TNVAT Act, 2006 is justified. There is no basis to justify the claim as inter-State sale. The said plea is specious and not as per law. The petitioners have not made out a case for the relief sought for both in law and on facts. 13. A similar issue was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. v. District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam and others, (2005) 140 STC 112, wherein it was held as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e auction sale in Tamil Nadu and the movement of goods to Karnataka. The said movement was purely voluntary at the option of the petitioner and not under any legal obligation. Hence, the decision in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1981) 48 STC 232 (SC): AIR 1981 SC 1604 is clearly distinguishable. 14. The decision of the Division Bench, cited supra, fortifies the view now taken by this Court. For the reasons stated supra and in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the plea of the petitioners that it is an inter-State sale has no legal basis and hence, the said contention is rejected. The challenge to levy of Tamil Nadu value added tax therefore fails. In the result, these writ petitions are d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
