Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.Nos. 14472, 14534 & 15622 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1, 2, 1, & 1 of 2015 (Through Video Conferencing)
W.P.Nos. 14472 & 14534 of 2015 Sudhir Crane Services Private Limited, Rep. by its Director, No.5/363, MBT Road, BHEL Anna Nagar, Seegarajapuram – 632 515, Ranipet, Vellore District. ... Petitioner in both W.Ps.
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), O/o. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Ranipet (SIPCOT), Ranipet. ... Respondent in both W.Ps.
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Rc.B1/1418/2013 dated 05.12.2014 relating to the Assessment Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and quash the same as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and error on the face of record.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar in both W.Ps.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan, Additional Government Pleader in both W.Ps.
W.P.No.15622 of 2015 Sudhir Crane Services Private Limited, (Sudhir Transports) Rep. by its Director, No.5/363, MBT Road, BHEL Anna Nagar, Seegarajapuram – 632 515, Ranipet, Vellore District. ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), O/o. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Ranipet (SIPCOT), Ranipet.
2.The Additional General Manager, BAEL, Ranipet – 632 406. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Rc.A3/1418/2013 dated 10.03.2015 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and error on the face of record.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Hariharan, Additional Government Pleader
C O M M O N O R D E R
By this common order, all the three Writ Petitions are being disposed of.
2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the following impugned orders:-
| Sl. No. | Writ Petition No. | Impugned Order No. and Date | Prayer of the Writ Petition |
| 1 | 14534/2015 | Rc.B1/1418/2013 dated 05.12.2014 | To call for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Rc.B1/1418/2013 dated 05.12.2014 relating to Assessment Year 2013-2014 and quash the same as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and error on the face of record. |
| 2 | 14472/2015 | Rc.B1/1418/2013 dated 05.12.2014 | To call for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Rc.B1/1418/2013 dated 05.12.2014 relating to Assessment Year 2012-2013 and quash the same as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and error on the face of record. |
| Sl. No. | Writ Petition No. | Impugned Order No. and Date | Prayer of the Writ Petition |
| 3 | 15622/2015 | Rc.A3/1418/2013 dated 10.03.2015 | To call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Rc.A3/1418/2013 dated 10.03.2015 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and error on the face of record. |
3. Since the ranks of the respondents vary in these writ petitions, the names of the respondents are mentioned in this common order to avoid the confusion.
4. The impugned orders in the first two Writ Petitions pertain to levy of tax under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on the ground that the petitioner has effected sale within the meaning of extended definition of sale under Section 2(33) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 of transfer of right to use of goods and is liable to tax.
5. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was supplying cranes under the agreement to the Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as BHEL for brevity). A specific reference was drawn to Clauses contained in the agreement dated 08.12.2011 signed between the petitioner and the said BHEL, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner has entered a service agreement for material handling activities of loading/unloading, stacking of materials, arrangement and re-arrangement of materials picking of loads from stacked position in wherever and whatever manner it was stacked, at shipping yard, fabrication yards, production, stores etc.
6. The petitioner in its reply to the notice dated 10.01.2014 had stated that the effective control over the material handling equipments was with it and that it has provided only service to BHEL.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further referred to the following conditions contained in the said agreement:-
Condition 4 :- BHEL reserves the right to demand the contractor to display more than the indicated number of cranes mentioned to copy up with the surge loading/unloading requirement.
Condition 6 :- The contractor shall supply the quantum of cranes indicated in TABLE 2 either through their owned cranes or acquired on valid lease bares.
Condition 8 :- A crane crew, consisting one trained operators and two riggers shall be provided for each crane.
Condition 11 :- Cranes shall be maintained in good working condition.
Condition 12 :- All the lifting tackles required for each crane for handling various type loads of BHEL are to be arranged by contractor and the lifting tackles are to be approved by BHEL compliant authority before put into use by BHEL. However for any special type of jobs/materials handling, BHEL at their discretion will provide the same under acknowledgement on returnable basis. Recovery will be made in case of non-retaining/damages. The tools and tackles of contractor shall not be mixed with BHEL tools and tackles.
Condition 17 :- Since the contract is for tonnage handle basis and the payment is as per MT handled basis, the con
