SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 4184

High Court of Judicature at Madras
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Lion Dates (P) Ltd. & Others
Versus
The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Chepauk, Chennai & Another
W.P. Nos. 16166 to 16168 of 2008 & 17322 & 17323 of 2010 & Connected Mps.
Decided on: 20-11-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Palani Selvaraj for R.G. Narendhiran, Advocates.
For the Respondents: S. Kanmani Annamalai, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Taxes).

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a clarification issued under Section 28A of the TNGST Act cannot have retrospective effect and must be in line with the statutory provisions. Additionally, the court emphasized the binding nature of circulars issued by statutory authorities and their prospective withdrawal.

Headnote:

Writ Petitions - TNGST Act - Section 28A - Summary of Acts and Sections: TNGST Act, 1959 - Section 28A - Entry 9 of Eleventh Schedule - The judgment discusses the legality of a clarification issued under Section 28A of the TNGST Act and its retrospective application. It also examines the conditions for treating an item as imported goods under Entry 9 of the Eleventh Schedule. The court quashes the impugned clarification and directs the respondents to consider the petitioners' applications for waiver and grant admissible waiver within a specified period.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought relief to declare a clarification issued by the first respondent as prospective in application from the Assessment year 2003-04 and to quash the consequential order of rejection of the application for waiver and refund the excess differential tax collected from the petitioners for the assessment year 2003-2004.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned clarification was illegal, unsustainable, and contrary to settled legal principles. It quashed the clarification and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' applications for waiver and grant admissible waiver within a specified period.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the impugned clarification issued under Section 28A of the TNGST Act, the retrospective application of the clarification, and the conditions for treating an item as imported goods under Entry 9 of the Eleventh Schedule.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned clarification was illegal, unsustainable, and contrary to settled legal principles. It also emphasized that the clarification cannot be given retrospective effect, as done by the respondents in the case of the petitioners.

Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were allowed, the impugned clarification was quashed, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioners' applications for waiver and grant admissible waiver within a specified period.

Judgment

1. Since the relief sought for in all these Writ Petitions are identical and pertains to the same Group of Companies relating to the same product and common questions have been raised, these Writ Petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P. No. 16166 of 2008 is taken as a lead case and the prayer sought for in W.P. Nos. 16166 to 16168 of 2008 are identical wherein the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of declaration to declare the clarification issued by the first respondent in Clarification No.40/2003 dated 27.01.2003, as being prospective in application from the Assessment year 2003-04, and consequently declare that the Assessment Orders passed by the second respondent are illegal and unsustainable.

3. In W.P. Nos. 17322 & 17323 of 2010, the petitioners seek for identical relief as in the other three writ petitions to declare the clarification No.40 of 2003 dated 27.01.2003, as being prospective in application from the Assessment Order 2003-04, and to quash the consequential order of rejection of the application for waiver as unjust, illegal and void ab initio, and refund the excess differential tax collected from the petitioners for the assessment year 2003-2004.

4(i) The petitioner is engaged in the business of purchasing, processing, packing and selling of 'Dates' and 'Date Syrups'. The petitioner is said to have been purchasing 'Dates' from dealers in other States, though the origin of the 'Dates' may be outside the Country. The petitioner on such purchase of 'Wet Dates', process, pack and sell the same under the registered brand name 'Lion Brand', which is a registered Trade Mark of the petitioner.

(ii) The 'Wet Dates' fall under Entry 11(ii) of Part D of First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, and taxable at 12%. The petitioner filed the monthly returns and remitted tax at 12% and the assessments were completed without any query upto the assessment year 2001-02.

(iii) The petitioner's case is that they do not directly import 'Wet Dates' from abroad, but purchase the same from dealers in Bombay as Inter-State sales, the Dates are processed, packed and sold with their brand name 'Lion Dates' and taxes are remitted at the rate of 12%. By virtue of Amending Act 22 of 2002, Section 3(2C) was inserted to the of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act ('Act'), by which for certain goods, the rate of tax were revised. The relevant Entry is Entry No.9, which deals with import of cigarettes, medium density fibre boards, textile and other items falling in Parts D and E of First Schedule, the point of levy is first sales and the rate of tax is 20%.

(iv) On introduction of Section 3(2C) of the Act, the petitioner had a genuine doubt as regards the rate of tax payable by them on the sale of 'Wet Dates', which they have purchased by way of Inter-State sale. Therefore, they sought for clarification from the first respondent. The first respondent by proceedings dated 13.08.2002 in Clarification No.230 of 2002, stated that the 'Wet Dates' purchased by the petitioner from Bombay are re-packed in small volumes with brand name 'Lion' and sold locally are taxable at 12% under Entry 11(ii) in Part D of I Schedule to TNGST Act, 1959. Accordingly, the petitioner filed their returns. However, by another Circular dated 27.01.2003, bearing Circular No.40 of 2003, addressed to the petitioner, which in fact is a suo motu action, the first respondent stated that the earlier Clarification dated 13.08.2002, was further examined and decided that 'Wet Dates' of foreign origin, whether imported directly from other countries or purchased from other States would fall under Entry 9 of Eleventh Schedule of TNGST Act. Therefore, the Clarification dated 13.08.202 was modified by stating that 'Wet Dates' of foreign origin, whether imported directly from other countries or purchased from other States are liable to be taxed at 20% under Entry 9 of Eleventh Schedule of TNGST Act. The Clarification No.40 of 200










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top