C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)

These tax case (revision) petitions have been filed under section 60(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 ('the TNVAT' for short) challenging the common order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ('Tribunal') dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner and holding them to be dealers and liable to pay Value Added Tax.

2. The petitioner has raised the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in law in stating that the Petitioner/Appellant would fall within the ambit of ''dealer'' as per section 2(15) of the TNVAT Act, 2006?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in law in stating that sale of repossessed vehicle on behalf of the defaulter by the Petitioner/Appellant would be liable to pay taxes under VAT Act on the sale of the Hypothecated Motor Vehicles?

(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in law in stating that the Petitioner/Appellant is a dealer even though the contractual agreements specifically states the Petitioner/Appellant is not the owner of the Vehicle?

(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in law in stating that Resale of Plant and Machinery, Furniture and Fittings and Fixed Asset by the Petitioner/Appellant which is used for the purpose of own business would fall within the meaning of sale and subject to VAT as per the TNVAT ACT, 2006?

(5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the additions made to sale of Plant Machinery, Fixture, Furniture, air conditioner and gold/gold jewellery as part of business activity of the assessee?

3. We have heard Mr. R.Sivaraman, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Venkateswaran, Learned State Government Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondent in all cases.

4. It is not in dispute that the identical questions of law were considered by the Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (TSSJ) was a party, in the case of Cholamandalam Investment -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu [decided on 25.09.2019 in T.C. Revision Nos. 2 to 9 of 2019]. Wherein, the identical contentions were raised by the said petitioner, who was also a non-banking finance company. The Tax Case Revisions were dismissed by a common order dated 25.09.2019. The operative portion of which reads as follows:-

“ 22.We have heard the elaborate arguments put forth by Mr.N.Sriprakash, followed by the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader on several dates. In our view the learned Special Government Pleader has rightly crystallized the arguments made on either side and has framed questions/issues, which are required to be answered by us in these revision petitions. The four questions/issues, which required our consideration are hereunder:

(i)Whether the assessee is a dealer as defined under Section

2(15) of the TNVAT Act and liable to pay sales tax on the sale of the repossessed vehicles?

(ii)Whether the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd., would apply to the case of the asseessee?

(iii)Whether the assessee when acts as an agent of the borrower is liable to pay sales tax?

(iv)Whether the liability of the agents is not co-extensive with that of the Principal?

23.When we heard the case at the first instance, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the issues raised in these revision petitions are clearly covered by the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd., Mr.N.Sriprakash submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd., to the case of the assessee, who is the non-banking finance company. Therefore, we are to test the applicability or otherwise of the decisi