Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs State Of Tamilnadu Reported In 110 Stc ... on 16 December, 2009
Author: K.Raviraja Pandian
Bench: K.Raviraja Pandian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 16.12.2009 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Tax Case (Revision) No.2253 of 2008 The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madurai Division, Madurai. Appellant v. Tvl. S.B.Timbers, 95-D,Santhai Road, Mettupatty, Dindigul. Respondent Tax Case Revision filed praying to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai, dated 12.07.2000 in Madurai Tribunal Appeal No.457/99. For appellant : Mr.Haja Naziruddeen, Special Government Pleader For respondent : Mr.V.Sundareswaran JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.) This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein it was held that the turnover should not be split up for the levy of additional sales tax as per the amended Act, 1996. The additional sales tax is levied on the taxable turnover only when it exceeds 100 crores. The correctness of the same is put in issue by the department in this case.
2. A Division Bench of this Court while considering a similar issue in issue in Writ Petition No.29744 of 2002 and Tax Case (Revision) No.1795 of 2008, in which one of is a party, by order dated 21.01.2009 has passed the following order :
" Mr.Ramagopal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the issue involved in the tax case revision as well as in the writ petition is one and the same. The learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in the writ petition as well as the tax case revision is covered in favour of the writ petitioner by reason of the Judgment of the Special Tribunal reported in the case of Siemens Limited vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 110 STC 313. The fact that the decision of the Special Tribunal in the above said case has become final and it has not been further adjudicated by the revenue is accepted by the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes). However, the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) states that the facts are little bit different in this case.
Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, we are of the view that the writ petition as well as the tax case revision can be disposed of by directing the authorities concerned to act in accordance with the proposition of law laid down by the above said Siemens case. If the facts of the case is not similar to the one, it is well open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law. Such an order is passed. With the above directions, the writ petition as well as the tax case revision are disposed of.
3. The issue in this revision, as stated above, is similar to the one dealt with by the Division Bench in the above said judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent has also brought to the notice of the Court Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.302 Commercial Taxes Department dated 03.11.1998 and informed that the ratio of the Siemens' case has been accepted by the Government. There is no point for the Government to agitate the issue over and again, which shows that the authorities acting under the Government and administrating the commercial tax is not aware of the GO dated 03.11.1998. Be that as it may, in view of the G.O. Ms. No.302 dated 03.11.1998 and applying the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.01.2009 cited supra by accepting the ratio laid down in Siemen's case, the revision is dismissed. No costs.
(K.R.P.,J.) (M.M.S.,J.) 16.12.2009 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mf K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.
and M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
T.C. . No.2253 of 200816.12.2009