The court emphasized the importance of supporting materials for the Revenue's claim and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for further consideration.

D. Murugesan, J. - Tax Case Appeal No. 239 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 2000-2001. Tax Case Appeal No. 240 of 2006 relates to the year 1999-2000. Since the assessee and the appellant are one and the same and the questions of law raised are also one and the same, both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common order.

The appeals were admitted on the following questions of law :

"1. In view of the specific language of section 8(2A) of the CST Act, 1956, and on the admitted position that the turnover of the appellant is well below Rs. 100 crores, whether imposition of tax under CST on the appellant is sustainable in law ?

2. Whether the lower authorities and Appellate Tribunal have taken into consideration the language of section 8(2A) of the CST Act ? and

3. Whether the quantum of turnover could be fixed purely based on the statement without any corroborative material ?"

In order to answer the questions of law, the following few facts are relevant :

The appellant, viz., assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 32,98,557 and Rs. 32,98,557, respectively, for the year 2000-01. The assessee has also reported a total turnover at Rs. 9,44,13,569 and taxable turnover at Rs. 31,289 for the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee claimed exemption for sale of refined oil on the ground that it is not an inter-State sale and in any case, by virtue of the notification issued under section 17 of the TNGST Act, the assessee is exempted from payment of tax if the total and taxable turnover is less than Rs. 100 crores. The assessing officer did not agree with the claim and proceeded to pass the assessment orders. Those orders were taken on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, by his order dated October 6, 2004, partly dismissed the appeal and partly remanded the same. The remand is for the purpose of re-consideration of levy of penalty and the confirmation is in respect of the payment of tax, i.e. otherwise the denial of the claim of exemption.

These two appeals have been filed against the common order against both the assessment orders.

Mr. G. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant - assessee, submitted that the notification was issued pursuant to the powers conferred under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, exempting payment of tax for the commodity in question and the said notification came into force on March 27, 1998. By virtue of the said notification, if the total turnover is less than Rs. 100 crores, the exemption would be automatically available. That limit of Rs. 100 crores was increased by a further notification which came into force with effect from April 1, 1999. As the total turnovers in each assessment year in question do not exceed Rs. 100 crores, the levy of tax is unwarranted. The learned senior counsel would further submit that even on merits, the claim for exemption under section 6(3A) ought to have been granted. The learned senior counsel would submit that for the purpose of reduction of claim of exemption, the assessing officer as well as the other authorities had relied upon only the statements said to have been recorded from the General Manager, which statement had not only been retracted subsequently, but also the Income-tax authorities while considering the grievance of the appellant - assessee, held that the assessment cannot be based on the mere statement and accordingly allowed the appeal preferred as against the assessment orders.

On the other hand, Mr. Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that insofar as the exemption is concerned, it is a conditional exemption to avail of the benefit of exemption in terms of section 6(2A) of the CST Act which was in force for the relevant assessment years. The notification relating to the exemption must be general in nature and if the exemption is on certain conditions, the provisions of section 6(2A) is not available to the a