TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds 5% sales tax on branded garments, emphasizing Schedule entries over notifications</h1> <h3>Coromandel Garments Ltd. Versus State of Tamil Nadu</h3> Coromandel Garments Ltd. Versus State of Tamil Nadu - [1999] 116 STC 239 (Mad) Issues:1. Interpretation of sales tax levy on ready-made garments sold under a registered brand name.2. Applicability of notifications under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.3. Assessment of tax rate under item 87 of the First Schedule.Analysis:The judgment addresses the issue of whether ready-made garments sold under a brand name registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act are subject to a 5% sales tax levy or a concessional rate under specific notifications. The assessing authority and appellate bodies determined the tax rate at 5% under item 87 of the First Schedule, rejecting the petitioner's claim based on notifications under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.The notifications in question, S.R.O. No. A-1967 of 1959 and the subsequent notification of 1962, focus on reducing tax rates for specific goods made of cloth, excluding those sold under a brand name. In contrast, item 87 of the First Schedule, introduced in 1974, specifically addresses ready-made garments sold under registered brand names, subjecting them to a 5% levy at the point of first sale in the State.The judgment emphasizes the principle that specific entries in the Schedule override general entries, leading to the conclusion that ready-made garments under a registered brand name fall under item 87 and are liable for a 5% tax. The court dismisses the petitioner's argument regarding the timing of receiving the registration certificate, highlighting that the registration was effective from a prior date, thus upholding the Tribunal's decision.Ultimately, the court finds no grounds for interference in the revisional jurisdiction, concluding that the Tribunal's order is legal and proper. As a result, the petition is dismissed, with no costs awarded.In summary, the judgment clarifies the tax treatment of ready-made garments sold under a registered brand name, emphasizing the specific entry in the First Schedule and rejecting claims based on general notifications.
TaxTMI 