2025:MHC:2537 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICEANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.Nos. 5101, 5102, 5105, 5103, 5104, 5108, 5109, 5106 & 5107 of 2002 &

22015 of 2007 W.P.No. 5101 of 2002:

Tamilnadu Telecommunications Ltd., No.42, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

.. Petitioner Vs

1.The Commercial Tax Officer, Triplicane Assessment Circle IA, 62, Cathedral Road, Chennai – 600 086.

2.The Principal Commissioner &

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 004. .. Respondents Prayer in W.P.No.5101 of 2002 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records on the files of the First respondent herein in CST/36808/2000-2001 dated 7.2.2002 and issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the proceedings of the First Respondent herein in CST/36808/2000-2001 dated

7.2.2002.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Prasad (in all writ petitions)

For Respondents : Ms.Amritha Dinakaran Government Advocate (in all writ petitions)

COMMON ORDER (Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

This is a batch of 10 writ petitions wherein the prayers are for a quash of orders of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short ‘Act’). W.P.No.5101 of 2002 challenges an assessment for the period 2000-01 and the remaining writ petitions challenge provisional assessments for the months of April, May, June, July, August, September, October and November, 2001. In W.P.No.22105 of 2007, the petitioner challenges Clarification dated 29.04.1993 based on which the impugned assessment have been framed. Since the issue that arises in all the writ petitions is one and the same, we pass a common order disposing all writ petitions.

2. The assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Orders of assessment have been passed for the periods 2000-01 and 2001-02 accepting the returns filed under the provisions of the Act. In respect of the period 2000-01, the turnover was an amount of Rs.22,30,43,235/-. The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 ('AST Act'), provides for the levy of additional sales tax setting out certain conditions on the basis of which such liability would stand triggered.

3. The threshold for triggering AST liability till September, 2001 was Rs.

25 crores, and hence for the period 2000-01, as the turnover was below the aforesaid threshold, the petitioner did not suffer any AST liability. The TNGST assessment was completed on such basis. As far as the period 2001-02 is concerned, an amendment was brought into the relevant provisions of the AST Act whereby the threshold for applicability was reduced from Rs.25 crores to Rs.10 crores with effect from 29.09.2001.

4. The sales turnover of the assessee as on 30.11.2001 was Rs.9,34,60,860/-

and the turnover did not exceed a sum of Rs.10 crores even till 31.03.2002. Hence there was no AST liability for 2001-02 as well and the TNGST assessment was completed on that basis. The assessee had engaged in inter-state sales for the period 2000-01, returning turnover of Rs.90,52,12,546/-. In those returns under the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act), the assessee proceeded on the basis that there would be no necessity to reckon AST liability.

5. Pre-assessment notices were issued by the assessing authority calling upon the assessee to show cause why AST should not been levied in the CST assessments. The assessee objected to the proposals pointing out that the charging provision, being Section 2(1)(aa) of the AST Act, stood attracted only to TNGST assessments. There was no provision in the CST Act that brought into play the provisions of the AST Act and in such circumstances, the proposal of the assessing authority to levy AST in the CST assessments was not sustainable in law.

6. Overruling the objections, assessments came to be completed on various dates confirming the proposals