2009 (11) TMI 826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 as the determination to the contrary by the first respondent is ultra vires the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner approached the Commissioner for clarification by stating that the product manufactured by him is a product assessable under entry No. 69 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 taxable at four per cent. Since there are three clarifications as to the said entry and the product manufactured by the petitioner is a new product, to verify as to whether it would fall under item No. 69, Part B, the petitioner sought for clarification by filing an application dated November 24, 2008 before the second respondent. However the second respondent forw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e seriously prejudiced. Hence, the clarification is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and consequently, the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to classify the product as assessable under entry No. 69, Part B of the First Schedule. I do not agree with the submission of the petitioner. As already seen and admitted by the petitioner itself, the Act contains no provision conferring either on the second respondent or on the first respondent by delegation, an authority to give clarification. Yet, conscious of the total absence of power, for reasons best known to the petitioner, it invited the clarification by presenting an application, which the respondents readily gave too. However, when the clarification went against t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ails to perform its statutory function. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in W.P. No. 3526 of 2008 dated September 4, 2008, wherein this court had passed an order holding that the impugned clarification issued is without jurisdiction and the same has to be quashed. This court further held that this court had not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the clarification, as the same is a subject-matter to be assessed by the assessing authorities. By no stretch of any legal principle the prayer of the petitioner could fall within the scope of article 226 of the Constitution of India. I agree with the view expressed by this court holding that the clarification issued is without jurisdiction. Giv....