9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent. 2. The petitioners has filed this Writ Petition, praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 18. 11. 2011, insofar as it directs payment of 14. 5 & VAT on the sale value and consequently, to direct the first respondent to collect sales tax at 2% from the petitioner for sandalwood purchase made by the petitioners, in the course of inter state trade within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and to deliver the sandalwood on production of Form-C and payment of the sale consideration. 3. Identical Writ Petitions were considered by this Court, and they were dismissed, by order, dated 21. 11. 2012, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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: "11. It may be noted that the auction sale of sandalwood in the State of Tamil Nadu was done by the State of Tamil Nadu. The State Government would only be interested in getting the highest price for the sandalwood, and it would hardly be concerned with the question whether the sandalwood after the auction sale is consumed within the State of Tamil Nadu or goes to some other State. Hence, it cannot be said even by implication that the State of Tamil Nadu had e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M. P. No. 2 of 2011 (3 Petitions) and M. P. No. 3 of 2011 (3 Petitions) are closed. " 4. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent/Forest Department that, as against the order passed by the Division Bench, in the case of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. , Vs. District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam and others reported in [(2005) 140 112], which has been referred to in the case of Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
