COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)

These tax cases have been filed by the petitioner, raising 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 as 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 not treating the sale of Plant & Machinery, fixture, furniture, air conditioners etc., as scrap?

2. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for both sides in unison submitted that the identical questions of law were already decided against the assessee by a Division Bench of this Court, in Tax Case (Revision) Nos.2 to 9 of 2019 on 25.09.2019 in the case of Cholamandalam Investment v. The State of Tamil Nadu. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are usefully extracted below: 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 decision in HDFC Bank Ltd., For such reason, we propose to test question No.(ii) at the first instance and the necessity to answer the other three questions will be subject to the decision we take on question No.(ii).

24.In HDFC Bank Ltd., the revision petition was filed before this Court questioning the correctness of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the Bank is liable to pay sales tax. The assessment under the TNVAT Act was revised by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the bank had not reported the sale of repossessed vehicle from defaulting customers in their return and not paid taxes thereon. As in the case on hand, the appeals filed before the first