Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

J.B.LEATHER versus TAX OFFICER

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


J.B.Leather v. Tax Officer - WP.Nos.24201 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 2758 (22 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 22.08.2007

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Writ Petition Nos.24201 and 24202 of 2007

and

M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2007

Tvl.J.B.Leather Fertilizers & Company

Represented by its Proprietor,

Vallam Village,

Vellore District .. Petitioner in both the writ petitions -Vs.-

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,

Vellore North Assessment Circle,

C.T.Buildings, Fort Round,

Vellore .. Respondent in both the writ petitions Prayer:- Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in RC.A3/4364/2000, dated 23.02.2006, and the connected proceedings in TNGST 569463/94-95 dated 11.08.2004 and CST 565296/94-95 dated 11.08.2004, respectively, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. For Petitioner in both the WPs : Mr. K.Soundara Rajan For Respondent in both the WPs : Mr. R.Mahadevan, A.G.P., - - -

C O M M O N O R D E R



The writ petitions have been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in Rc.A3/4364/2000, dated 23.02.2006, and the connected proceedings in TNGST 569463/94-95 dated 11.08.2004 and CST 565296/94-95 dated 11.08.2004, respectively, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal.

2. Mr. K.Soundara Rajan learned counsel for the petitioner in each of the petitions had submitted that the petitioner is a dealer in Leather Meal which is obtained from raw hides and skins. The Leather Meal so obtained is sold to various dealers who are the manufacturers of Organic Manures. Since the said sales are termed as sale of manure, the sales effected by the petitioner in each petitions are exempted from the purview of leavy of tax under the Third Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the TNGST Act") and in turn it is also exempted from the levy of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act"). However, the respondent had passed the impugned orders, dated 11.08.2004, in TNGST No.569463/94-95 and CST No.565296/94-95, demanding payments of Rs.1,13,988.00 and Rs.1,44,986.00, respectively, on the sale of Leather Meal. Though the petitioner had filed a Rectification Petition, under Section 55 of the TNGST Act, relying on the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 08.03.2003, in letter No.Acts Cell-III/65018/2002, clarifying that Leather Meal is an Organic Manure and that it is exempted from Sales Tax. The respondent had passed the common impugned order, dated 23.02.2006, in RC.A3/4364/2000, without taking into consideration the circular passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 08.03.2003 and demand notices had been issued based on such assessment following the said common impugned order.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in each of the petitions that the common impugned order, dated 23.02.2006, passed in RC.A3/4364/2000 is to be set-aside and the respondent be directed to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 08.03.2003, in letter No.Acts Cell-III/65018/2002.

4. Mr. R.Mahadevan learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), who had taken notice on behalf of the respondent, on instructions, submitted that he had no objection to the claims made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in each petitions.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the common impugned order, dated 23.02.2006, passed in RC.A3/4364/2000 is set-aside and the respondent in each of the writ petitions is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, in view of the circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated 08.03.2003, in letter No.Acts Cell-III/65018/2002, as expeditiously as possible and more particularly within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or on its production.

6. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently the connected MPs are closed. srk

To

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise,

Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate, No.692, MHU Complex, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise,


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.