TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether chemicals purchased against Form XVII and used in the manufacture of goods exported could be subjected to levy under Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. (ii) Whether penalty under Section 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was attracted on the facts of the case.
Issue (i): Whether chemicals purchased against Form XVII and used in the manufacture of goods exported could be subjected to levy under Section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis: The disputed turnover arose from chemicals purchased for use in converting wet blue into finished leather, which was treated as a manufacturing process. The material used in that process was regarded as consumed in manufacture. The court followed the earlier binding view that such use entitled the dealer to concessional treatment under Form XVII, and the export of the manufactured goods did not justify interference with the appellate order.
Conclusion: The levy under Section 3(4) was not sustained and the finding was in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 23(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was attracted on the facts of the case.
Analysis: The declaration form was not found to have been violated or misused, and no deviation from the stated use of the chemicals was established. In the absence of such violation, the penalty provision could not be invoked.
Conclusion: Penalty under Section 23(b) was not attracted and the finding was in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed and the appellate relief granted to the dealer was left undisturbed, with the Revenue's substantial questions answered against it.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods purchased under a concessional declaration are consumed in a manufacturing process and no violation of the declaration is shown, the concessional benefit cannot be denied and penalty cannot be imposed merely because the manufactured goods are exported.
TaxTMI 
