9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Vs. The Assistant Commissioner [2004 (5) TMI 538 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that The Assessing Officer was justified in coming to a conclusion that the taxable turnover for the period between 01.04.1996 and 31.03.1997 being more than ₹ 100 crores, the petitioner was liable to pay additional sales tax even as per the amended provision as contained in Section 2(1)(aa). Thus, it is clear that the liability to pay additional sales tax is to be collected on the total taxable turnover of the dealer for the entire year. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the petitioner that the year should be split into two, is impermissible as we cannot add words to a statute which are clear and unambiguous. The Assessing Officer ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not applicable to the petitioners as the head office of the petitioners was situated outside the State of Tamil Nadu as it was specifically made applicable only to dealers whose head office was situated inside the State of Tamil Nadu. (iii) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that the petitioners were liable to pay additional sales tax only from the period from 18.06.1999 taking into consideration only the taxable turnover of the petitioners for the period from 18.06.1999 to 31.03.2000. (iv) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Act 37/99 was only a more reformed form of Act 23/98 which removed certain mischief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he quantum assessment as well which includes the levy of additional sales tax. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.03.2004 dismissed the appeal and while doing so, directed the Assessing Officer to take note of the decision in the case of Murugan Timbers. Both the petitioner as well as the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, dismissed the case of the petitioner. The correctness of this order is challenged by the petitioner/dealer only with regard to the levy of additional sales tax and not on the other portions of the assessment order. The Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner's case, held that there cannot be vaccum for the period from 01.04.1999 to 20.06.1999 and Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (CT) [W.P No.3739 of 2002] dated 18.05.2004. The said writ petition was filed to quash the order passed in O.P.No.584 of 2001 dated 28.09.2001 which confirmed the assessment order dated 01.08.2001 and demanded additional sales tax. On a reading of the judgement, we find that identical argument was placed before the Hon'ble Division Bench in the said case and the argument was rejected in the following terms. 8. Even assuming that there was no liability to pay and there was no provision regarding payment of additional sales tax between 01.04.1996 to 31.07.1996, the annual turnover of the petitioner for the assessment year 1996-97 was admittedly more than ₹ 100 crores. It is immaterial that the taxable turnover for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taxable turnover and with effect from 01.11.2001, the slab has to be followed as per the amendment under Act 13 of 2001, when the taxable turnover exceeded ₹ 10 crores i.e., at 1% of the taxable turnover and where the taxable turnover exceeded ₹ 25 crores and did not exceed ₹ 50 crores, the taxable turnover was assessable at the rate of 1.5% of the taxable turnover. Going by the decision of this Court, taking the entire year's turnover, the liability upto the date of the amendment will have to be worked out at the rate prevailing upto the date of amendment and for the period subsequent to the amendment, the rate prevailing therein. By taking the taxable turnover for the whole year, as the taxable turnover attracted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
