Dismissed

M/s. Tamanna Vinyl Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Madras HC12 Sept 2024WP/23899/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging CST Act assessment orders for 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The petitioner had not produced E1 forms to claim exemption on transit sales; a Division Bench order in its own earlier case answered the issue against it. The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petitions dismissed with no costs and connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/s. Tamanna Vinyl Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.23899 and 23900 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.Nos.23899 and 23900 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.25216 and 25218 of 2021

¶9

M/s.Tamanna Vinyl Traders, Rep by its Proprietor No.6 Nainiappa Naicken Street, Chennai – 600 003.

¶10

... Petitioner in both W.Ps

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Mooremarket Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 003.

¶13

... Respondent in both W.Ps

¶14

Prayer in W.P.No.23899 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in CST/77348/20002001, quash the assessment order dated 22.09.2021 made therein.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/5

¶17

W.P.Nos.23899 and 23900 of 2021

¶18

Prayer in W.P.No.23900 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in CST/77348/20012002, quash the assessment order dated 22.09.2021 made therein.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Subramanian (in both W.Ps) For Respondent : Mr.C.Harsharaj (in both W.Ps) Additional Government Pleader

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order

¶22

passed by the respondent under CST Act, 1956 for the Assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the Assessment year 1999-2000, a similar order came to be passed which

¶24

was taken up on appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15533 of 2004, wherein, a challenge was made to the order

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/5

¶27

W.P.Nos.23899 and 23900 of 2021

¶28

passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional

¶29

Bench) on 15.03.2004 in A.P.CST No.165 of 1999.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that issue has been answered against the petitioner and by following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Chordia Electricals reported in [(2000) 120 STC 34 Mad]. Operative portion of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15533 of 2004, the petitioner's own case rendered on 03.12.2021

¶31

which reads as under:-

¶32

“ 5.Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner has to necessarily furnish Form E1 declaration so as to claim exemption on transit sales under Section 6(2)(i) of the CST Act. Admittedly, they did not produce 'E1' Form before the third respondent. Since the petitioner did not fulfil the statutory conditions to claim exemption, we are of the view that the third respondent/assessing officer as well as the first respondent/Tribunal were justified in holding that the petitioner/assessee was not entitled to claim the exemption and the turnover in question was to be taxed at the rate of 4 per cent.”

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/5

¶35

W.P.Nos.23899 and 23900 of 2021

¶36

In the light of the above, the present writ petitions are liable to

¶37

be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

¶38

connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

12.09.2024

¶40

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No jas

¶41

¶42

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Mooremarket Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 003.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

4/5

¶45

W.P.Nos.23899 and 23900 of 2021

¶46

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶47

jas

¶48

W.P.Nos.23899 and 23900 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.25216 and 25218 of 2021

¶49

12.09.2024

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

5/5

M/s. Tamanna Vinyl Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Tamanna Vinyl Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

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

Tvl.Sakthi Vinayaga Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Vs The State tax officer

Tvl. Keerthana Traders Vs the State Tax Officer (St)

Employers Federations of Southern India Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

The Commissioner Vs The Joint commissioner of central Excise

Tvl. Fresh and Honest Cafe Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/s.Global Impex Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)