9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf and therefore the same has been rightly exempted by the tribunal. Imposition of penalty under section 9(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- Since the imposition of tax itself has been set aside by the tribunal and has been upheld, consequential penalty imposed on the assessee has been rightly deleted by the tribunal. There are no merit in the present case filed by the Revenue Department - appeal dismissed. - Tax Case (Revision) No.20 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2020 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar For the Petitioner : R. Swarnavel Govt. Advocate (Taxes) For the Respondent : M/s.Aparna Nandakumar ORDER DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. The State has filed this Tax Case raising the purported question of law from the order in the Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 5.2.2010. 2. The three issues are involved in the present case. The first issue decided in favour of the assessee by the learned Tribunal was regard to the freight and pumping charges on the ready mix cement concrete sold by the assessee, as to whether freight charges billed separately can be included in the taxable turn over or not? 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Mix Cement Concrete Works and that the dealer had to perform the role of a transporter in transporting the commodity to the construction site of the buyer and in the light of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of the dealer to the effect that the receipt of freight and delivery charges were not reflected under the head sales and services, but shown under other income in the annual audited accounts for the year ended 31.3.2003 we have no hesitation to hold in the facts and circumstances of this case that freight and pumping charges could not be included in the sale price of the Ready Mix Cement Concrete sold by the assessee and as such the disputed turnover is exempted from tax as has been rightly held by the Learned First Appellate Authority and we answer this point against the appellant.' 4. Both the learned counsel have agreed that the issue is covered by a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited , itself on 13.12.2018, for the preceding years in Tax Case (Revision) Nos.10 and 11 of 2013. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the aforesaid decision, has held as under; '10. In our view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ports of the goods covering the disputed turnover were occasioned by the contract of sale between the respondent/dealer and their prospective purchaser viz., TNEB and the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. A perusal of the contract dated 16.2.1999 entered into between the dealer and the TNEB would show that there was a contract between them for the supply of certain goods by the dealer to the TNEB and pursuant to the said contract only the dealer had placed orders with their foreign suppliers and pursuant to such purchase order the foreign supplier sent those goods to India and the foreign suppliers invoice would show that the consignees address was mentioned as Larsen Toubro Limited. C/o.site office at Ennore Thermal Power Station, Ennore. A perusal of the contract between the dealer and the TNEB and the invoices raised by the foreign supplier and the invoices raised by the dealer in favour of the ultimate buyer would show that these goods were imported by the dealer only pursuant to the contract they entered into with the TNEB for supply of the same to the Ennore Thermal power Station. Hence, through documents, the genuineness of which has never been in dispute, the dealer had suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales in course of import taken place in the course of import and was inextricably related to the import itself and therefore the same has been rightly exempted by the tribunal. 10. The third issue is with regard to imposition of penalty under section 9(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The learned Tribunal has set aside the said penalty with the following observations; ' 20) Point No.(iii): The assessing officer had imposed a penalty of ₹ 13,08,212 at 50% on the tax due under Section 9(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act 1959. The Learned First Appellate Authority has deleted the penalty holding that all the turnovers were culled out from the books of accounts only and no part of the turnover was brought from outside the records and hence the assessment would fall under Section 12(1) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax act, 1959 and hence penalty is not leviable under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamilnadu General sales Tax Act, 1959. For recording the said finding, the said authority would rely upon the case law reported in 125 STC 505 in Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
