Madras High Court
M/S.Sundaram Finance Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 November, 2013
Author: Chitra Venkataraman
Bench: Chitra Venkataraman, T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 14.11.2013 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Tax Case (Revision) Nos.396 to 406 of 2011 --- M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited No.21, Pattulos Road Chennai-2 ... Petitioner in all the above Tax Case(Revisions) -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Joint Commissioner (CT) Chennai (East) Division Chennai ... Respondent in all the above Tax Case(Revisions) Prayer in Tax Case (Revision).No.396 of 2011:- Tax Case (Revision) filed under Section 38 of the TNGST Act, 1959 to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench) Chennai dated 28.02.2011 passed in STA.No.398 of 2006. For petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For respondent : Mr.Aditya Reddy Government Advocate (Taxes) COMMON ORDER
(The Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) These eleven Tax Case (Revisions) are directed against the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.2.2011 in STA Nos.398 of 2006, 434 of 2006, 435 of 2006, 441 of 2006 , 442 of 2006, 443 of 2006, 444 of 2006, 445 of 2006, 448 of 2006, 476 of 2006 and 556 of 2006 relating to the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1996-97, 1995-96 and 1988-89 respectively under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2.The petitioner/assessee is a non-banking Finance Company dealing in hire purchase and leasing transactions and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 and earlier under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Assessing Officer passed individual assessment orders in respect of the relevant assessment years levying tax and penalty on the transactions relating to import-lease, inter-State lease and lease receipts for the lease agreements entered prior to 1.4.1986.
Aggrieved by such assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
3. The First Appellate Authority by common order dated 28.9.2000 and 16.10.2000, set aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on the ground that at the time when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182 was not before the Assessing Officer. There was a further direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of transaction in each case with reference to the details and documents produced by the assessee in support of their claim and decide the liability or otherwise of the transactions, applying the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182.
4. Further, the First Appellate Authority held that since there was no charging section for levy of tax on transfer of right to use goods prior to 1.4.1986, the leasing charges received by the assessee on the basis of the agreements entered into prior to 1.4.1986 are not liable to tax and accordingly the assessment made on these charges were set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Authority to verify the exemption claimed in respect of each agreement and decide the liability or otherwise of the charges on the basis of the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to when the deemed sales of leasing took place. Since major portion of the assessment had been set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty levied was also set aside and remanded for fresh decision.
5. On such remand, the Assessing Officer confirmed the original proposal including the levy of penalty on the ground that the assessee did not produce the original records. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the transaction of import from other country and from other State by the assessee is the transaction between the assessee and the foreign supplier/ other State supplier on one hand and the lease transaction between the assessee and the lessee in Tamil Nadu on other hand are two different transactions. By placing reliance on a circular of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Act Cell I/8582/94 dated 30.8.1994, the Assessing Officer held that the lease rental is liable to tax under section 3A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
6. Aggrieved by such Assessment Orders, the assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority contending that the Assessing Officer did not apply the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182 and the directions contained in the remand order. Further, it was contended that the Assessing Officer took note of the final lease agreement alone which was produced in the set of sample documents without appreciating the fact that the import and inter-State purchase of equipments were effected by the assesee pursuant to an agreement to enter into a lease agreement between the assessee as the lessor and the customer as lessee who were very much in the picture before the commencement of the transfer of the leased goods to the business place of the lessee. Before the First Appellate authority, the assessee claimed exemption under section 3A(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, in respect of import-lease and inter-State lease by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182. In so far as the lease receipts pertaining to agreements entered into prior to 1.4.1986, it was contended that in the absence of charging section for levy of tax on transfer of right to use goods, prior to 1.4.1986, those transactions are not liable to tax.
7. The First Appellate Authority, by common order dated 30.9.2005 passed for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 set aside the levy of tax on the import-lease transactions and inter-State lease transactions and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to consider the documents filed by the asssessee in respect of the transactions entered prior to 1.4.1986 thereby, setting aside the levy of tax and deleting the penalty. Aggrieved by such order dated 30.9.2005, the State preferred appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
8. In the appeal filed by the State before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the State disputed only with regard to the turnover relating to lease receipts for the lease agreements entered prior to 1.4.1986 and the penalties which were deleted. However, there was no specific ground raised with regard to the import-lease and inter-State lease and in the prayer made before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the State only sought for restoring the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the lease receipts on the lease agreement entered prior to 1.4.1986.
9. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by common order dated 28.2.2011 passed for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 partly allowed the appeals filed by the State. While doing so, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the order of the First Appellate Authority remanding the assessment in respect of import-lease and inter-State lease is not correct. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the appeal in respect of the lease receipts for the lease agreements entered prior to 1.4.1986, relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financila Services Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Value Added Tax and Others reported in (2010) 29 VST 346 (Delhi). Aggrieved by such order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee preferred the above Tax Case (Revisions).
10. Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, submitted that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the remand portion of the order of the First Appellate Authority in respect of import-lease and inter-State lease transactions by relying upon the third proviso to Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. On merits it was contended that the finding of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with regard to the import-lease and inter-State lease transactions is contrary to the law laid down in the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of I.T.C. Classic Finance and Services Vs. Commercial Taxes reported in 97 STC 330, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra. It is further submitted that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal over looked the fact that the taxable event under Section 3A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was transfer of the right to use goods and not exercise of the right by usage of the goods taken on lease or the payment of the lease amount. It is further submitted that in respect of transactions prior to 1.4.1986, the goods identified by the lessee prior to the agreement were moved from other States pursuant to the agreement directly to the lessees as by way of inter-State sales and the State Government has no authority to levy tax on such inter-State movement. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of I.T.C.Classic Finance and Services Vs. Commercial Taxes reported in 1997 STC 330, affirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182 and the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in (2007) 6 VST 805 (Ker) in the case of First Leasing Company of India Ltd Vs. State of Kerala. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee in order to demonstrate as to the nature of transaction between the assessee and the lessee, produced copies of the agreement to enter into lease agreement, proforma for opening letter of credit in favour of the foreign supplier, proforma invoice of the foreign supplier, Air Way Bill, Certificate of origin, packing list, copy of the bill of entry for home consumption and copy of lease agreements.
11. Per contra, Mr.Adithya Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, sought to sustain the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by contending that lease agreements were entered into at Chennai in Tamil Nadu, the lessor and lessee were in Tamil Nadu where the agreement took place, the machinery were put to use in Tamil Nadu, the lease rental receipts were in Tamil Nadu and therefore for all deeming fiction, the situs of sale was in the State of Tamil Nadu. It was further contended that the goods in question were not delivered directly by the foreign seller/ inter-State seller to the lessees in Tamil Nadu; goods purchased by the assessee were taken delivery by them and thereafter given on lease for passage of economic benefit over the property. Therefore, it is submitted that the decision in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182 is of no relevance to the facts of the case. In support of his contentions, learned Government Advocate placed reliance on the decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in the case of Upasana Finance Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 113 STC 403 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Value Added Tax and others reported in 29 VST 346.
12. The above Tax Case (Revisions) have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
" 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in interfering with the remand order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) IV and restoring the order of assessment in respect of import-lease transactions and inter-State lease transactions, when it has no jurisdiction to interfere against a remand portion of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in view of the third proviso to Section 36(1) of the TNGST Act, 1959 ?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is wrong in holding that the lease receipts received for the lease agreements entered prior to 01.04.1986 is liable for tax under Section 3A of the TNGST Act is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182 ?"
13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records including the copies of the agreements and other documents pertaining to the nature of transactions between the assessee, foreign supplier and the lessee.
14. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the assessee has entered into two types of transactions namely import-lease transactions and inter-State lease transactions. In respect of these transactions, the assessee seeks to draw a distinction in respect of lease receipts on lease agreements entered prior to 1.4.1986 and in respect of lease receipts on lease transactions after 1.4.1986 by contending that as a consequence of the 46th Amendment to the Constitution of India, the States were empowered to levy tax also on the transfer of right to use goods though there is no sale of the goods by a transfer of the property over them. Tax on such transaction was first levied in the State of Tamil Nadu by insertion of Section 3A from 29.5.1984, with effect from 1.4.1986. Therefore, it is contended that in the absence of the charging provision, the agreements entered prior to 1.4.1986 cannot be subjected to tax.
15. Firstly, we shall consider the technical objection raised by the learned counsel for the assesee that when the State raised the only dispute before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the turnover relating to the lease receipts for the lease agreements entered prior to 1.4.1986, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and interfered with the remand order even in respect of import-lease and inter-State lease agreements. On a perusal of the memorandum of grounds of appeal filed by the State before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, we find that the State contended that the order of the First Appellate Authority is not correct and they have questioned the order in respect of lease receipts on imported goods, lease receipts on inter-State goods, lease receipts on agreements entered prior to 1.4.1986 as well as on the deletion of the surcharge and penalty. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reject such contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee.
16. With regard to the import-lease receipts, we have perused the copies of the agreements and import documents produced, from which it prima facie appears that the goods were specifically imported for a particular customer who eventually became the lessee. The modus operandi being the assessee and lessee entered into an agreement to enter into a lease agreement, which reflects the extent of lease finance required for acquiring/purchasing of equipment by import from countries abroad or from manufacturers in India. Pursuant thereto, the intending lessee identifies the equipments/machinery required by them and secures a proforma invoice from the foreign supplier in which the name of the assessee is shown as the lessor and the lessee as actual user. The name of the lessee also finds place in all the import documents. Therefore, in order to appreciate the nature of transactions between the parties, it is essential that the documents have to examined to consider as to whether the transactions are exempt from the levy of sales tax.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182 held that the State cannot levy a tax on the transfer of the right to use goods on the basis that one of the events in the chain of events has taken place within the State. The delivery of goods may be one of the elements of transfer of the right to use, but that would not be the condition precedent for a contract of transfer of the right to use goods. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that where a party has entered into a formal contract and the goods are available for delivery irrespective of the place where they are located, the situs of such sale would be where the property in the goods passes, namely where the contract is entered into. It was further pointed out that Clause (29A) of Article 366 cannot be read to imply that the tax under sub-clause (d) is to be imposed not on the transfer of the right to use goods, but, on the delivery of the goods for use. It was held that on a plain construction of sub-clause (d) of clause (29A) of Article 366, the taxable event is the transfer of the right to use goods regardless of when or whether the goods are delivered for use. It was further held that the locus of the deemed sale is the place where the right to use the goods is transferred, where the goods are when the right to use them is transferred is of no relevance to the locus of the deemed sale, also of no relevance to the deemed sale is where the goods are delivered for use pursuant to the transfer of the right to use them, though it may be that in the case of an oral or implied transfer of the right to use goods it is effective by the delivery of the goods. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that in cases where the goods are in existence, the taxable event on the transfer of the right to use goods occurs when a contract is executed between the lessor and the lessee and the situs of the sale of such a deemed sale would be the place where the contract in respect thereof is executed.
18. Therefore, to examine as to whether the transactions done by the assessee attract sales tax or not, the transactions/agreements have to be examined in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182. Likewise in the cases of levy of tax on inter-State lease, the First Appellate authority on examining the sample documents, held that inter-State purchases were effected only in pursuance of a contract to enter into a lease agreements and both the assessee and the lessee are in the picture even before the commencement of movement of goods from other State. Finding that the order of the Assessing Officer is not based on any particular lease, the First Appellate authority remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with a direction to the assessee to produce all original documents before the Assessing Officer with a direction to the Assessing Officer to decide the liability in the light of the decision of the Hon'b le Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182.
19. In the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Value Added Tax and Others reported in (2010)29 VST 346 (Delhi), the petitioner before the Delhi High Court was carrying on business of leasing of machinery and vehicles all over the country. The lease was for specified period and lease rental payable each month of the tenure of the lease. The transaction was held to be not exigible to sales tax under the Delhi Sales Tax Act. After amendment to Article 366 of the Constitution inserting clause (29A), the scope for the levy of sales tax expanded and the sale and purchase of goods by fiction of law would include transfer of the right to use goods irrespective of the fact that in leasing transactions, there is no ownership of goods passing from the seller to the buyer. While most of the States amended the definition of the term "sale" in their respective Sales Tax Acts, the Delhi State enacted a separate Act known as Delhi Sales Tax on Right to Use Goods Act, 2002, by virtue of which all lease transaction in which the transfer of the right to use goods had been effected became liable to sales tax. The case of the petitioner before the Delhi High Court is that prior to coming into force of the said enactment, there was no law or any provision in the existing Sales Tax Act providing for a levy of tax on lease transactions. It was argued by relying upon the decision in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182 that first there has to be "sale" and then the question of "situs of sale" arises; that the exigibility to tax arises at the stage of "sale" and transaction of sale / deemed sale even in case of transfer of right to use goods has to be treated as on the date of entering into agreement.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner/assessee submitted that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd reported in (2010) 29 VST 346 (Delhi) which was relied on by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be made applicable to the case on hand since the said judgment was delivered in the context of section 3(b) of the Delhi Sales Tax on Right to Use Goods Act, 2002, which is not in pari materia with the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
21. We do not agree with the said submission of learned counsel for the assessee since the Delhi High Court in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd reported in (2010) 29 VST 346 (Delhi) considered the definition of "sale" as contained in Section 2(n) of the Delhi Sales Tax on Right to Use Goods Act, 2002, which is in pari materia with the definition of "Sale" as defined under Section 2(n) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and held that "sale" as defined means any transfer of rights to use any goods for any purpose, for deferred payment or any other valuable consideration. Deferred payment here would mean that the consideration for transfer of right to use goods had been be fixed, but down-payment has not been made which was allowed to be staggered. Once this restricted meaning is given to the expression 'deferred payment', it would not pose any difficulty in examining the cases of lease rentals. Here in such cases, goods are given on lease and rent is payable every month during the tenancy of the lease. Even as per the terms of the agreement, right to use accrues in favour of the lessee only when he pays the said rentals regularly, each month. Therefore, in such cases, deemed sale, i.e. transfer of right to use goods would accrue every month on payment.
22. As pointed out by the Delhi High Court in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd reported in (2010) 29 VST 346 (Delhi), when the 46th Amendment to the Constitution made certain transaction as "sale" by deeming provision, that concept could be pressed into service for the purpose of taxation as well, viz., at what point of time "sale" was to be inferred for the purpose of taxation and it was this fiction, that was created under Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as well. Section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act contemplates levy of tax on lease rentals realised for each year in relation to the business of transfer of right to use goods and lease being a continuous transaction and lease rental realised for each year is taxable under Section 3A of the TNGST Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot make out a distinction in respect of agreements entered prior to 01.04.1986 and after 01.04.1986, nevertheless, the assessee could produce documents to establish that the transaction is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another and to fall within the ambit of Section 3A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or to bring the same within the scope of the Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to be a deemed sale to take place in the course of import of the goods into the territory of India and these questions being essentially questions of facts to be determined by the authorities based on the documents to be produced by the assessee.
23. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that from the reading of the documents produced before this Court, it is seen prima facie that the transactions entered into between the parties are amenable to Section 3A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, however, on the aspect of deduction under Section 3A(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182 will have relevance to those inter-State purchases; purchases in the course of import and the same will have to be considered for deduction in the computation of turnover under Section 3A(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
24. Going by the terms of the agreement on the lease and proforma invoice of the foreign supplier apart from letter of credit opened and other import documents, the assessment in this case calls for a remand. Consequently, in so far as the turnover relating to agreements entered prior to 01.04.1986 on the import of machinery is concerned, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, thereby, we set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
25. As far as the agreement entered prior to 01.04.1986 is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the assessee raised serious dispute that considering the 46th Amendment to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, coming only from 01.04.1986, transactions entered prior to the charging provision would not be taxed under the provisions of the Act, there being no definition of sale to include the leasing transaction as a deemed sale.
26. Correspondingly, the assessment as regards the transactions entered into after 01.04.1986 would have to be considered by the Assessing Officer in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182.
27. We do not agree with the said submission of learned counsel appearing for the assessee. In fact in the decision reported in (2010)29 VST 346 (Delhi) in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Value Added Tax and Others, the Delhi High Court considered the said issue and we are in respectful agreement with the reasoning in the said decision. It is not denied by the assessee that in respect of the transactions entered into post 01.04.1986, the liability on the leasing transactions arises every year. It is not the case of the assessee that merely because the first year of the leasing transactions are assessed under Section 3A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the second year of lease goes for exemption; for the liability to make the payment for every subsequent years arises under the agreement itself so that the the lease may have the economic benefit of the goods given under the lease. Thus, extending the same principle, for the contracts entered into prior to 01.04.1986, with a clause in the lease agreement requiring the assessee to make the payment every month so that he may have the beneficial possession of the machinery and to keep the agreement alive; once the amendment expands the definition of 'sale' by including leasing transaction as a deemed sale and the charge is created under Section 3A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act with effect from 01.04.1986, irrespective of the date of entering into the agreement, the liability to pay tax gets activated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
28. In the circumstances, we reject the contention of the assessee that transactions entered prior to 01.04.1986 would not be liable for any assessment under the provisions of Section 3A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. In the circumstances, we reject the assessee's Tax Case (Revisions).
29. However, considering the fact that the nature of transactions in respect of the agreement entered prior to 01.04.1986 are not different from those transactions after that date, in fitness of things, we set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for consideration of the turnover of the assessee on the question as to whether the subject matter of lease were purchases made on inter-State sale basis falling under Section 3A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act or on course of import and that depending on the materials that may be produced by the assessee viz., all the documents pertaining to the transactions on the leasing entered into post 01.04.1986 as well as prior to 01.04.1986, the Assessing Officer may consider the claim of the assessee keeping in the background the principles laid down in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 119 STC 182.
30. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the question of levy of penalty at this stage did not arise. In the result, the Tax Case (Revisions) stands disposed of on the above terms and the assessments stand restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. No costs.
Index:Yes (C.V.,J) (T.S.S.,J) Internet:Yes 14.11.2013 nvsri/rpa To 1.The Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai (East) Division Chennai 2.The Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT)IV, Chennai 3.The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Main Bench), Chennai. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. and T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. nvsri Tax Case (Revision) Nos.396 to 406 of 2011 14.11.2013