Tribunal Denies Petitions for Tax Exemptions, Citing Specificity of Law

The Tribunal dismissed all original petitions, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to exemptions or remissions sought, as G.O. Ms. No. 115 was specific to Sundaram Industries and not applicable to others. The Tribunal held that Article 14 did not permit extending benefits granted to one individual to others. Additionally, Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act did not allow for collective exemptions. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioners could not claim similar benefits under Article 162, as executive orders specific to one case do not create a precedent for others.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and applicability of G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue Department, dated January 17, 1972.
2. Remission of taxes and penalties imposed upon the petitioners.
3. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Application of Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
5. Invocation of Article 162 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Applicability of G.O. Ms. No. 115, Revenue Department, dated January 17, 1972:
The petitioners sought exemption from sales tax on bus bodies supplied for export, similar to the exemption granted to Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd. in G.O. Ms. No. 115. The Tribunal noted that G.O. Ms. No. 115 was specific to Sundaram Industries and was issued before the insertion of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which rendered the G.O. redundant. The Tribunal also referenced its previous decision, which held that a complete bus is a different commercial commodity from chassis or bus body, thus no exemption under Section 5(3) could be granted.

2. Remission of Taxes and Penalties Imposed Upon the Petitioners:
The petitioners sought remission of taxes and penalties for sales of bus bodies made to exporters. The Tribunal ruled that the petitioners could not claim remission based on G.O. Ms. No. 115, as it was specific to Sundaram Industries and not applicable to other dealers. The Tribunal emphasized that exemptions granted to one dealer do not automatically extend to others.

3. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners argued that denying them the same benefits as Sundaram Industries violated Article 14 (equality before the law). The Tribunal cited multiple Supreme Court decisions, which held that Article 14 does not permit extending benefits granted to one individual to others unless the law mandates it. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioners could not invoke Article 14 to claim similar benefits, as the exemption was specific to Sundaram Industries.

4. Application of Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The petitioners relied on Section 17, which allows the government to notify exemptions or reductions in tax. The Tribunal clarified that Section 17(4) permits the government to remit taxes for individual dealers, not for all dealers collectively. Since the exemption in G.O. Ms. No. 115 was specific to Sundaram Industries, the petitioners could not claim a similar exemption under Section 17.

5. Invocation of Article 162 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners sought to invoke Article 162, which deals with the executive power of the state, to claim similar exemptions. The Tribunal ruled that Article 162 could not be invoked to compel the government to pass similar orders for other dealers. The Tribunal referenced Supreme Court decisions, which stated that executive orders specific to one case do not create a precedent for others.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all the original petitions, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to the exemptions or remissions they sought based on the specific and limited scope of G.O. Ms. No. 115 and the relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemptions granted to Sundaram Industries could not be extended to the petitioners under the existing legal framework.

---