Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, G. Arul Murugan, JJ.
M/s.Cochin Plantations Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer (DG) and ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos. 9402, 9403, 9404, 9405 & 9406 of 2008 And M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided On : 21-10-2024
ORDER :
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Prayer in WP.No.9402 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the files of the 4th Respondent herein in STA.No.97/2000 dated 8th January 2008, quashing the proceedings and order of the 4th Respondent.
Prayer in WP.No.9403 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Order of the 4th Respondent herein in STA.No.94/2000 dated 8th January 2008, quashing the said Order of the 4th Respondent.
Prayer in WP.No.9404 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Order of the 4th Respondent herein in STA.No.95/2000 dated 8th January 2008, quashing the said Order of the 4th Respondent.
Prayer in WP.No.9405 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Order of the 4th Respondent herein in STA.No.96/2000 dated 8th January 2008, quashing the said Order of the 4th Respondent.
Prayer in WP.No.9406 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Order of the 4th Respondent herein in STA.No.114/2000 dated 8th January 2008, quashing the said Order of the 4th Respondent.
At request of parties, W.P.No.9404 of 2008 is listed under a special list as it is connected to this batch of writ petitions but has been omitted to be listed today.
2. This common order disposes a challenge to an order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ('STAT/Tribunal') dated 08.01.2008 for the periods 1984-85 to 1988 – 89 (periods in question).
3. The petitioner has an Estate at Kerala where it grows cardamom. The cardamom from that estate is brought to Coimbatore and sold there. For the period 1981-82, the same issue as arising in these writ petitions had arisen, relating to whether the turnover from sale of cardamom grown in the Kerala estate would be liable to tax in Tamil Nadu under the provision of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Act).
4. The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of the turnover from sale of cardamom in its assessments in Tamil Nadu. A declaration was sought to the effect that the phrase 'within the State' in Section 2(r) of Act was ultra vires the Constitution of India. The writ petition stood transferred to the file of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai.
5. By an order passed on 05.03.1999, the Tribunal held that full exemption was afforded to all agricultural products grown in the State of Tamil Nadu and hence denial of exemption to agricultural products grown outside the State, when sold in Tamil Nadu would amount to discrimination. Hence the phrase 'within the State' in Section 2(r) of the Act offends Article 301 and 304 of the Constitution, was violative and ultra vires the Constitution and was hence liable to be struck down.
6. As a consequence of their conclusion, the assessment of the turnover from the sale of cardamom brought in from Kerala for sale in Coimbatore was held not to be sustainable. The order of the Special Tribunal dated 05.03.1999 has attained finality and consequence has been given to the same.
7. The identical issue has been raised by the assessing officer for the periods in question. All the assessment orders have been passed prior to the date of the order of the Special Tribunal and hence the assessing authority did not have the benefit of the same. In the orders of assessment, the assessing authority brings to tax the entirety of the turnover related to the sale of cardamom grown in Kerala and no other ground has been raised in support of the taxability.
8. As against the orders of assessment, appeals were filed before the first Appellate Authority, who disposed the same by way of an order
The phrase 'within the State' in Section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is unconstitutional as it discriminates against agricultural products grown outside Tamil Nadu, violating Article....
The burden of proof under the TNGST Act rests with the assessee, and failure to establish claims leads to tax liability and penalties.
Freight charges are considered part of the sale consideration in sales tax assessments, and authorities must thoroughly examine accounts rather than rely on estimates.
The court held that the reasons for denying exemption under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act were contrary to established legal principles regarding inter-State sales and agency.
Compounding orders under sales tax law must follow a proper assessment and notice; failure to do so violates natural justice.
Court sets aside ex parte GST assessment order and remits for fresh consideration, granting assessee opportunity to submit explanations on discrepancies in exempted turnover on equitable grounds.
The assessing authority must substantiate disallowance claims with evidence beyond mere assumptions, particularly regarding transactions post-inspection.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
