9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal (in short 'STAT'/'Tribunal') dated 11.12.2007. The petitioner had suffered an order of assessment for the period 1996-97 by proceedings dated 24.08.1999. On appeal, the assessment was remanded to the Assessing Officer by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), vide proceedings dated 17.01.2001. While giving effect to the remand order, Additional Sales Tax (AST) had been levied on taxable turnover of a sum of Rs. 15,66,00,424/- for the period 01.04.1996 to 31.07.1996 in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 (in short 'TNAST Act'). 2. The petitioner has challenged the levy of AST before the AAC in first appeal and thereafter before the Tribunal in second appeal. Its c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision Bench of this Court in the case of Philips India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Fast Tract Assessment Circle II and others (137 STC 134). That was a case where that assessee had turnover in excess of Rs. 100 Crores for the period 01.04.1996 and 31.03.1997. While interpreting the order of the Tribunal in Siemens Ltd., the Division Bench of this Court states as follows: '8. Even assuming that there was no liability to pay and there was no provision regarding payment of additional sales tax between April 1, 1996 and July 31, 1996, the annual turnover of the petitioner for the assessment year 1996-97 was admittedly more than Rs. 100 crores. It is immaterial that the taxable turnover for the period from August 1, 1996 to Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shold for the levy of AST stood enhanced from Rs. 10.00 lakhs to Rs. 100 Crores.
10. It is true that if the turnover of the writ petitioner is taken for the year in entirety, it would be less than a sum of Rs. 100 Crores. However for the purpose of assessment, the assessing authority is bound to apply the provisions of the Act strictly from their dates of insertion into the Act. Hence for the period 01.04.1996 to 31.07.1996, as the turnover of the petitioner is in the region of Rs. 15.66 Crores, which is far in excess of Rs. 10.00 lakhs, the petitioner cannot avoid liability under the TNAST Act.
11. We hence agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal and confirm order dated 11.12.2007. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
