The court allowed the writ petition allowing the Department to seek documents. The disposal relies on the principle established in a connected petition that exempted goods cannot be taxed.
Petitioner's writ petition allowed on terms similar to a connected petition; department clarified as to liberty to seek documents. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 12.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
WP.No.24404 of 2004
M/s.Indrakumar Trading Corporation, 174, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai-1.
Rep. by its Partner Indrakumar .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sowcarpet-II Assessment Circle, 6th Floor, Wavoo Complex, No.191, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-1. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in No.K.Dis.Acts.Cell-11/15553/04 dated 18.06.2004.
Heard Ms.Sushma Harini for M/s.Mallika Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
“The petitioner has challenged the order of the third respondent dated 17.04.2007 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and for the year 2005-06.
“8. It is very clear from the submissions made by both sides as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9074 of 1996 and the letter dated 29.04.1997 issued by the Sales Tax department that the sale of 'appalam' and 'pappad' have been exempted even as early as on 26.04.1989. Now the department therefore cannot turn around and clarify whether the pappad made out of hand or out of machine or a special pappad. In the normal circumstances and the normal usage it will have to be considered only as 'appalam' and 'pappad' as it stands and it cannot be bifurcated into two different categories nor exemption is made on category basis. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when there is an exemption granted by the Government itself from the year 1989 coupled with the fact that the assessment itself is over, it is not known as to how the respondents can now initiate action proposing to levy tax on the exempted goods. Further, the show case notice issued by the respondents clearly indicate the intention of the authorities namely to even impose penalty. If really it is only a show
cause notice, it would have only sought explanation from the petitioner and not directing that the penalty would be imposed. Therefore, the show cause notice, especially when it was issued in respect of a goods which was already exempted, definitely calls for interference by this Court.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gya
To
1.The Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Special Commissioner &
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Sowcarpet-II Assessment Circle,
6 th Floor, Wavoo Complex,
No.191, NSC Bose Road,
Chennai-1.
+1cc to M/s.Mallika Srinivasan, Advocate SR.No.48692 +1cc to Special Government Pleader SR.No.49132
W.P.No.24404 of 2004
RK(CO) GN(25/07/2017)
M/s.Indrakumar Trading Corporation
The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5
The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai-5
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sowcarpet-II Assessment Circle
T.S.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
