9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahadevan J. For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Senniappan For the Respondents : Mr.V.Hari Babu, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Taxes) ORDER Challenging the order dated 07.01.2010, passed by the second respondent in Appeal No.20/2009, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 2.According to the petitioner, they are the partnership firm, which is registered as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for brevity, TNGST Act ). The first respondent had assessed the petitioner and passed an order relating to the assessment year 2004-05, levying resale tax at 1% representing second sales of old conveyor belts, which were purchased by the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). Subsequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the impugned order, which is against the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Shanmuga Traders and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [114 STC 1 SC] . Hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the circular and the decision relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. According to him, the order impugned in this writ petition is perfectly right and in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference. 5.Heard both sides and perused the records. 6.Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner with respect to the assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le or any subsequent sale in the State. 13. The Second Schedule of the State Act specifies the single point; it is the point of first sale in the State . The first sale in the State was the sale by the said Board to the appellants/petitioners. That sale was exempt from tax by reason of the notification dated 1-12-1982 aforementioned. The iron and steel sold by the said Board to the appellants/petitioners was, therefore, not liable to tax either at the point of first sale or any subsequent sale in the State. 14. There is no warrant for the emphasis that would appear to have been placed by the Madras High Court on the phrase taxable sale . The State Act does not fix the single point of the levy at the first taxable sale; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re liable to pay resale tax at 1% under Section 3-H of the TNGST Act, 1959 with effect from 1.7.2002. 8.From the above extract, it is crystal clear that the sales of old conveyor belts out of the purchases made from TNEB is exempted from tax as second sales upto 30.06.2002, however, the second sales of such conveyor belts would be liable to resale tax at 1% under Section 3-H of the TNGST Act, from 01.07.2002 onwards. Following the aforesaid Supreme Court decision as well as the clarification issued by the authority, in many cases, the Appellate Authority as well as the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessees. Even in the present case, the first respondent had accepted the original assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
