Dismissed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Murugappa Morgan Thermal

Madras HC3 Sept 2018TC/135/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Short Order, a two-Judge Bench of the High Court of Madras dismissed the State's revision petition. The Court held that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly interpreted Section 3(4) based on Division Bench authority, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's case.

What did the court decide?

The tax case is dismissed and the substantial question of law framed for consideration is answered in favour of the assessee.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Murugappa Morgan Thermal — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 03.9.2018

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶7

Tax Case No.135 of 2018

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai (North) Division, Chennai-8. ...Petitioner/Appellant

¶9

¶10

Tvl.Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd., Chennai ...Respondent/Respondent

¶11

TAX CASE under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai dated 20.6.2014 made in STA.No.200/2013 against the order of the appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT).I chennai, dated 21/12/12 madein Appeal No & year 39/2010 Assement circle dated 29/10/2010 made in Assessment No.TNGST/100491/2005-06.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Haribabu, AGP

¶13

Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J

¶14

This tax case by the State is directed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai in STA. No.200/2013 dated 20.6.2014.

¶15

The above tax case is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

¶16

“Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is correct in interpreting the expression 'does not sell the goods so manufactured' occurring in Sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as including not only intra state but also export sale ?”

¶17

The learned Additional Government Pleader does not

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

dispute the fact that the above referred to substantial question of law has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in 36 VST 67] against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

¶20

Thus, the Tribunal rightly followed the said decision and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the light of the above, the tax case filed by the Revenue has to necessarily fail.

¶21

In the result, the above tax case is dismissed and the substantial question of law framed for consideration is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RS
To
1. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
(Additional Bench), Chennai.
2. The Joint Commissionner (CT)
Chennai (North Division. Chennai -8.
3. The Administration Deputy Commissioner (CT)(FAC)
Chennai (North Division. Chennai -8.
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.61449

¶23

TC.No.135 of 2018 GMY(01/10/2018)

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Murugappa Morgan Thermal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Murugappa Morgan Thermal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Vs M/S.Tamilnadu Petroproducts

The Commissioner of Vs M/S. Dresser Valve India

Commissioner of Customs & Vs M/S Sesa Sterlite Ltd.

The Commissioner of GST & Vs M/S. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.

M/S.Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Vs the Commissioner of Customs

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Tv.L.Lioyda Insulations India