Assessee challenged assessments for 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1992-93 contending Photostat paper attracted 5% tax as a residuary item under the Fourth Schedule, not 10%. The Department concurred; the Court set aside the impugned orders only on rate and directed reassessment at 5% within four weeks.
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.
2024:MHC:3581
WP.Nos.16641, 16642 & 16643 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.Nos.16641, 16642 & 16643 of 2008
M/s.Nikkon Colour Lab, Represented by A.Arockiaswamy, Proprietor, 15, Prakasam street, Chennai-17. ... Petitioner in all WPs
vs
Prayer in WP.No.16641 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the 1st respondent in S.T.A.No.193/01 dated 26.3.08, relating to the year 1989-90, and quash the same as being invalid and illegal and contrary to law.
1/5
WP.Nos.16641, 16642 & 16643 of 2008
Prayer in WP.No.16642 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the 1st respondent in S.T.A.No.211/01 dated 26.3.08, relating to the year 1990-91, and quash the same as being invalid and illegal and contrary to law.
Prayer in WP.No.16643 of 2008: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the 1st respondent in S.T.A.No.226/01 dated 26.3.08, relating to the year 1992-93, and quash the same as being invalid and illegal and contrary to law.
(In all WPs)
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth For Respondents: R1 – Tribunal Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran and Ms.Amirtha Dinakaran (for R2) Government Advocates
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J.)
Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with order
dated 30.09.2024 reads as follows:
'Referring to a decision in the case of Tvl.R.Mini Colour Lab v The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and others [W.P.No.19378 of 2003 dated 06.08.2007], learned counsel for the petitioner would give up the argument in relation to applicability of Section 3B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, not contesting the nature of the transactions.
2/5
WP.Nos.16641, 16642 & 16643 of 2008
2. The case of the petitioner is that the rate of tax to be adopted in the case of interstate purchase of Photostat paper is 5% as per Entry 21 of the IV Schedule. The assessing authority has, however, levied tax at the rate of 10%.
3. No doubt, this is not an issue that was raised either at the time of First or Second Appeal. However, since the rate of tax is one of the primary ingredients in framing of an assessment, we are of the view that this aspect of the matter ought to have been looked into by the assessing authority even at the time of original assessment. At any event, it can certainly be raised now.
4. Let written instructions be obtained by Mr.Prashan Kiran, learned Government Advocate in regard to the applicable rate of tax.
5. List on 15.10.2024 as item no.1.'
2.Written instructions are received from the assessing officer, where the assessing officer concurs with the stand of the assessee to the effect that the rate of tax ought to be 5% treating the commodity as residuary item under the relevant entry of the Fourth Schedule.
3.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Commercial Taxes Department, could also accede to the position that the rate of tax in this matter should only be 5%.
4.In light of the aforesaid, let the assessment be re-done as above, and appropriate orders be passed within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The impugned order, to the extent as relating to the rate of tax alone, is set aside.
3/5
WP.Nos.16641, 16642 & 16643 of 2008
[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J]
17.10.2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes
vs
To
4/5
WP.Nos.16641, 16642 & 16643 of 2008
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J
vs
W.P.Nos.16641, 16642 & 16643 of 2008
17.10.2024
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the correct rate of tax on interstate purchases of Photostat paper was 5% under Entry 21 of the IV Schedule rather than the 10% levied by the assessing authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tvl.R.Mini Colour Lab v The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and othersReferred
W.P.No.19378 of 2003 dated 06.08.2007
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s.Nikkon Colour Lab, represented by A.Arockiaswamy
The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, T.Nagar (East) Assessment Circle
Anita Sumanth
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
