2006 (11) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to as Act). 2. The petitioner firm is a registered dealer on the files of the respondent herein. They are carrying on the business of buying and selling aluminium. During the year 2003-2004, they have effected a sales of aluminium extrusion for Rs.1,23,85,333/- at a concessional rate of 3% against form XVII declaration which has also been determined by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent by his proceedings dated 12.4.2005, pointed out that the petitioner is not eligible to effect sales against Form XVII declaration and proposed to revise the assessment, directing the petitioner to pay the differential rate of tax. Hence, the petitioner has filed its objection dated 16.5.2005. 3. Earlier, the petitioner firm had filed W.P.No.29....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ler. In the absence of any other provision under the Act, the respondent has no jurisdiction to levy and recover the differential rate of tax from the petitioner, by the impugned proceedings, dated 16.11.2005. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of sale of extrusion by charging the sales tax in the invoices as authorised under Section 3(3) of the Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in SREE MURUGAN ENGINEERING PRODUCTS V. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE, (2006) 148 STC 419 (MAD), wherein it is held as follows: "15.In the instant case, the isue involved is covered by several judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court, an....