Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4539
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUDHAKAR
Teccon Services (P) Limited, represented by its Director, S. Jagannathan
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Alandur Assessment Circle
Writ Petition No.28302 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
Decided on : 07-11-2012
For the Petitioner:R. Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Aditya Reddy, Government Advocate (Tax).
The judgment emphasizes the need for assessing authorities to consider evidence thoroughly, apply principles of natural justice, and allow the submission of necessary documents when assessing claims for sales tax exemption on exports.
Headnote:
Sales Tax Exemption - Export Sales - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Section 9(2); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Section 12(3)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer and registered dealer, sought exemption on sales to exporters under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing authority denied the exemption, leading to a revision of the order and subsequent rejection of the petitioner's application for revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessing authority's denial of exemption was based on a misconception of the documents submitted by the petitioner, and that the authority had not applied its mind to the evidence presented. The court also highlighted the authority's inconsistency in accepting the same documents in a previous assessment order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of sales tax exemption on exports, the authority's failure to consider the evidence, and the lack of opportunity given to the petitioner to produce additional documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of assessing officers allowing the submission of necessary documents and ensuring the application of principles of natural justice. It also referenced a Division Bench decision outlining the requirements for claiming exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the respondent for reconsideration in light of the Division Bench decision, allowing the authority to fix a time limit for disposal of the matter.
This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in CST/584566/2005-06 dated 30.11.2011 insofar as it relates to the disallowance of sales to exporters for Rs.12,67,000-00 and further direct the respondent to consider the petition dated 11.9.2012 filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr.Aditya Reddy, learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the respondent.
3. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Heat Exchanger, Radiator and Oil Coolers and registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1959. In respect of the assessment year 2005-06, petitioner filed monthly returns reporting a total taxable turnover of Rs.86,22,312/- under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), by his proceedings dated 29.7.2010 considered the entire return and while passing the order two issues were considered. One is exemption on the turnover towards sales to exporters and the other one is exemption on the turnover towards direct export sales. Insofar as Rs.12,67,000/- is concerned it relates to sales to exporters, namely, M/s.Gem Forgings Private Limited, Calcutta and M/s.Sparex India, Chennai. In support of the sale to the exporters, they filed Form “H” together with Bill of Lading and other connected records which were considered and exemption was allowed.
4. Insofar as the own export for a value of Rs.4,23,340/- is concerned, the exemption was declined and tax was imposed at the full rate. This order was not accepted to the Department and therefore, notice was issued on 27.6.2011 in exercise of power under Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 read with Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 stating that exemption granted in respect of sales to exporters under Form “H”, there is some discrepancy and therefore, the assessment order requires revision. A reply was submitted on 4.7.2011 and the impugned order came to be passed on 30.11.2011 and that is under challenge.
5. The Crux of the issue was considered by the Department and the exemption was denied and the tax and penalty was imposed. Petitioner filed an application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for revision of the order which came to be rejected by reiterating the revised order dated 30.11.2011 in CST/584566/2005-06.
6. The plea taken by the petitioner is that the reasoning given by the authority for revising the assessment is on a misconception of the documents submitted, namely, the invoice, bill of lading/shipping bill and Central Excise document showing proof of export of the goods.
7. The document Form “H” No.063846 is covered by Invoice No.102 dated 21.6.2005. The description of goods is stated as 32 numbers of radiators (Tea Machinery and Spares). This is covered by Invoice No.102 dated 21.6.2005. The supporting Bill of Lading Number is AM-CCU/0705-0020 dated 4.7.2005 issued by consignor M/s.Gem Forgings Private Limited, Calcutta and the description of the goods in BIL is 12 numbers tea dryer radiator. Another Bill of Lading No.AM-CCU/0705-0022 dated 4.7.2005 is also issued by consignor M/s.Gem Forgings Private Limited, Calcutta and the description of the goods is 20 numbers withering trough radiators. These are inconsonance with the invoice No.102 dated 21.6.2005.
8. Insofar as the export by M/s.Sparex India, Chennai is concerned it is covered by invoice No.395 dated 6.3.2006 and the total number of articles are 14 Heat Exchangers and that is covered by Form “H” No.L964737. The description of goods is 14 number of Heat Exchangers and it is covered by Bill of Lading No.CLA/MAA/01567. It is covered by packing list by description of goods as Heat Exchangers quantity 14 in numbers. It is also covered by Central Excise document of M/s.Sparex India which are also part of the typeset of documents and admittedly were given to the assessing au
