2003 (3) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er 20, 1999 assessment year 1994-95.   2. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour I Assessment Circle, Chennai-108.   The petitioner imported sugar and his total turnover was at Rs. 1,16,48,983 and claimed that the same was not taxable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. However, the first respondent passed the assessment order. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, who by his order dated August 10, 2000, upheld the tax at 8 per cent on the turnover of Rs. 1,16,48,983 and set aside the addition of Rs. 3,11,148 and penalty of Rs. 11,18,963. The High Court of Madras, in the case of Indian Sugar & General Industry Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt in a Constitution Bench, in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 111 STC 467 while deciding the provisions of excise duty, have held: "Ordinarily, no assessee can be allowed to reopen proceedings that have been finally concluded against him on the basis of a favourable decision in the case of another assessee. This is because Reported in [2002] 127 STC 339. an order which has become final in the case of an assessee will continue to stand until it is specifically recalled or set aside in his own case." 6.. Expressing similar view, their Lordships of the Madras High Court in the case of Jindal Strips Limited v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [2002] 128 STC 141 have held: "Admittedly, the petitioner had no....