Elcot Power Controls Ltd. Versus Special Committee Under Section 16-D Of The Tngst Act, 1959, Chepauk, Chennai and others
VAT and Sales Tax
2007 (4) TMI 647 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2009] 20 VST 237 (Mad)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-4-2007
W.P. Nos. 12278, 12279, 12280 of 2007
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
–
RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K. , J.
\nORDER:-
\nK. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J.The prayer in the writ petition No. 12278 of 2007 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in Letter No. M3\/67302\/06 dated February 28, 2007 in so far as the assessment year 2000-01 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is concerned, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is concerned and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to entertain the application dated January 12, 2007 submitted by the petitioner under section 16D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
\nThe prayer in the writ petition No. <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n t in an identical case in W.P. No. 10416 of 2007 dated March 21, 2007 Reported as Okey Textiles v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2009] 20 VST 232 (Mad)., this court has passed the following order: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ot be divested by the repealed Act. The Repealed Act also categorically saves the rights of the petitioner under the TNGST Act. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Elcot Power Controls Ltd. Versus Special Committee Under Section 16-D Of The Tngst Act, 1959, Chepauk, Chennai and othersVAT and Sales Tax2007 (4) TMI 647 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2009] 20 VST 237 (Mad)MADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 4-4-2007W.P. Nos. 12278, 12279, 12280 of 2007 CST, VAT & Sales Tax–RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K. , J. … Continue reading “Elcot Power Controls Ltd. Versus Special Committee Under Section 16-D Of The Tngst Act, 1959, Chepauk, Chennai and others”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/348","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=348"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/348\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n"2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the assessee under the provisions of the TNGST and CST Acts. For the assessment year 1996-97, the petitioner claimed exemption on the entire sales pertaining to export of hosiery garments. However, the second respondent after checking up the accounts, culled out certain values from the books of account for the sales of quota, industrial salt and carton boxes and assessed the same to tax, besides levying penalty by his assessment order dated March 15, 2002 without issuing any preassessment notice inviting objections to such enhancement. Such an order passed without following the mandatory provisions of issuance of pre-assessment notice as required under section 12(2) and 12(3) of the TNGST Act. On that ground, invoking the <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3.. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gammon India Ltd. v. Spl. Chief Secretary in [2006] 145 STC 1 wherein a similar contention has been raised and adjudication order has been passed by the Supreme Court by a ruling that since re-enactment of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and section 80 of the latter Act saved the provisions of the former in toto, the rights and liabilities which had accrued or been incurred under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, would continue even after its repeal. The saving section 8 of the A.P. General Clauses Act, 1981 is in pari materia of section 88 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Hence, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. For the assessment year 1997-98, the vested r<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n