9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the return. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the freight charges have been shown separately and this has been recognized by the Assessing Officer himself. However, the Assessing Officer proceeded to revise the assessment rejecting the contention of the assessee. The judicial discipline requires that the earlier order of the Tribunal is followed especially when it is in the assessee's own case and identical transaction. The Tribunal was wrong in allowing the appeal by the State and setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Authority - tax case revision allowed. - Tax Case Revision No. 2 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Petitioner : M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dareshwaran, learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee and Mr.V.Hari Babu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in Bisleri water bottles and stated to be effecting Sales Tax Ex-Works. It is the case of the assessee that their customers did not have transit facility and they requested the assessee to arrange transport. Therefore, the amount of freight charges are shown separately in the invoice and the price of goods is not inclusive of freight charges. It is the further case of the assessee that upon delivery of the goods, the amount for the sale of goods and freight charges are reimbursed. By referring to Rule 6(c) of the TNGST Rules, 1959, it is submitted that freight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the matter. 7. Mr.V.Sundareshwaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in respect of the order passed by the Writ Court, the Tribunal passed very same order and allowed the appeal. 8. Mr.V.Hari Babu, learned Additional Government Pleader sought to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal by referring to the order dated 12.10.1998 and submitted that the assessee should have shown the freight charges in their returns and then claimed exemption and having not done so, the Assessing Officer was right in revising the assessment and passing the order dated 12.10.1998. 9. Rule 6 of the said Rules states that tax or taxes under Section 3 or 4 shall be levied on the taxable turnover of the dealer. In determining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer proceeded to revise the assessment rejecting the contention of the assessee. 11. As noticed above, in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, identical invoice was considered and the Tribunal by common order dated 11.01.1999 allowed the appeals. This order was placed before the Tribunal. When the present matter was heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal in paragraph 13 of the impugned order referred to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal but does not distinguish the same on facts but finds fault with the First Appellate Authority stating that the First Appellate Authority has not done proper verification. The earlier order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case would bind the Tribunal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
