Court classifies "textile machine clearer roller cleaner" as part of textile machinery for tax purposes. Impugned order set aside.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, determining that the "textile machine clearer roller cleaner" should be classified as part of textile machinery for tax purposes. The impugned order was deemed arbitrary and lacking reasoning, leading to its setting aside. The respondents were instructed to tax the item at 4%. The writ petition was deemed maintainable, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order dated May 22, 2008.
2. Classification of "textile machine clearer roller cleaner" for tax purposes.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition.
4. Adequacy of reasons provided in the impugned order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order Dated May 22, 2008:
The petitioner challenged the order dated May 22, 2008, issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 28-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary and amounted to a colorable exercise of power, as it lacked reasoning and did not consider the quasi-judicial nature of the authority's role.

2. Classification of "Textile Machine Clearer Roller Cleaner" for Tax Purposes:
The core issue was whether the "textile machine clearer roller cleaner" should be taxed at 12% under entry No.20 in Part D of the First Schedule or at 4% as part of textile machinery. The petitioner argued that this item is exclusively used in textile machinery and should not be classified under the general category. The petitioner cited previous clarifications and judgments, including the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Premier Polytronics Ltd., which supported the classification of specialized machinery parts under specific entries rather than general ones.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Government Advocate contended that the writ petition was premature since only a notice of assessment had been issued. However, the court found this argument misconceived, noting that the clarification issued under section 28-A is binding on all assessing authorities and thus constitutes a final order.

4. Adequacy of Reasons Provided in the Impugned Order:
The court agreed with the petitioner that the impugned order was arbitrary and non-speaking. It lacked reasoning, especially given that similar items had previously been classified as parts of textile machinery. The court emphasized the need for the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to provide reasons for their decisions, particularly when exercising statutory powers under section 28-A.

Conclusion:
The court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the "textile machine clearer roller cleaner" could only be used in textile machinery and should not be classified under the general category. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to treat the item as part of textile machinery, taxable at 4%. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

---