TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer/assessing officer. The petitioners have filed monthly returns under rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. (b) The petitioners are dealers in paper based decorative laminated sheets, which are received from other States and they have paid the tax at the point of first sale in the State. The product is made up of paper and is being treated as paper based products. The first respondent issued clarification under section 28A of the TNGST Act, 1959, with regard to the rate of tax on paper based decorative laminated sheet. In clarification No. 100/ 2005, dated August 17, 2005, the first respondent clarified that the products are decorative laminates and taxable at 16 per cent under entry 8(ii), Part E of the First Schedule to the Act. (c) According to the petitioners, the actual rate of tax on such goods is ten per cent and therefore they sought for review of the said clarification. The first respondent after reviewing the same, issued clarification No. 55 of 2006 on March 23, 2006 and stated that the paper based decorative laminated sheets are taxable at ten per cent as the goods are falling under entry No. 22(iv), Part C of the First Schedule to the Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an independent enactment and interpretation given under the said Act cannot be applied to the entries made in the TNGST Act, without making any amendment to the relevant entries. (g) It is further stated in the affidavit that even assuming that the first respondent is entitled to issue such clarification, the assessments already completed and the taxes paid shall not be reopened for the earlier years as the clarification cannot be applied retrospectively and if the same is applied, it will cause great hardships to the petitioners, who have already paid ten per cent of tax on their sale of laminated paper products. The second respondent filed counter-affidavit by stating that originally paper based decorative laminated sheets were assessed by levying tax at ten per cent under entry 22(iv) of Part C of the First Schedule and it was brought to the notice of the Department that the Supreme Court by following its own earlier decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. [1997] 10 SCC 350, Decent Laminates (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs reported in [2006] 7 SCC 438 and also Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial Tribunal having rendered a finding in O.P. No. 120 of 1996 on April 12, 1996 (Balaji Timber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 105 STC 213) and the said order having become final, the respondents are bound by the said order which was also accepted and implemented by issuing clarification on November 12, 1998 and March 23, 2006. The first respondent is not empowered to take a different view, particularly when the assessments were completed and ten per cent of tax having been paid by the petitioners. The learned counsels further submitted that the interpretation given by the honourable Supreme Court in the judgments relied on by the first respondent is applicable to the tariff payable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the same cannot be made applicable automatically to the TNGST Act, 1959 and in support of the said contention cited the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Associated Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu [1993] 89 STC 447 and judgment of the Bombay High Court in Neoluxe India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vikrikar Bhavan, Bombay [2008] 13 VST 157. The learned counsels also submitted that even assuming without admitting that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioners have got remedy to file objections with regard to the reassessment orders passed, the petitioners are having a remedy to file appeal against the said orders and therefore the writ partitions filed are liable to be dismissed. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that since the laminated sheets cannot be treated as paper based, as it is a different product, though paper is used as raw material, higher tax are liable to be payable by the dealers as it is coming under entry 8(ii) of Part E of the First Schedule to the Act. The learned Special Government Pleader cited the Division Bench decision of this court in Valtech High Tech Composites Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5 reported in [1994] 95 STC 476 and judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Leukoplast (India) Ltd. reported in [1997] 105 STC 318 in support of his contention. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the paper based laminated sheets shall not be treated as plastic products or plywood products. The interpretation given by the Supreme Court is in respect of plastic produ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larification No. 55/2006 dated March 23, 2006 is extracted hereunder: "COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT From Dr. T. Prabhakara Rao, IAS., Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. To Thiru V. V. Ramesh, Counsel for Tvl. Century Laminating Co., Ltd. C-l Ground Floor, 49, Mambalam High Road T. Nagar, Chennai 17. Lr. No. L. Dis. Acts Cell II/67772/05, dated March 23, 2006 Clarification No. 55/06 Sir, Sub: Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959-Rate of tax clarification under section 28A of the Act for 'paper based decorative laminated sheet'-Clarification issued-Reconsideration of-Regarding. Ref: 1. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes' D. Dis. ACII/23668/05, dated. August 17, 2005. 2. Note by Deputy Commissioner (Central), Chennai, dated November 25, 2005. 3. Review petition dated nil from Thiru. V. V. Ramesh counsel for Tvl. Century Laminating Co. Ltd., Channai. 4. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes' Lr. No. ACII/67772/05, dated January 2, 2006. 5. Written submissions dated January 12, 2006 by Thiru. V. V. Sampathkumar, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the petitioner. In the reference first cited a clarification was issued to Tvl. Century Laminat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(iv), Part C, First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The clarification already issued in the reference first cited is hereby cancelled. Sd/-Dr. T. PRABHAKARA RAO Commissioner of Commercial Taxes." The first respondent issued the clarification dated April 7, 2007 and stated that the paper based laminated sheets are taxable at 16 per cent and not at ten per cent, as it comes under entry 8(ii), Part E of the First Schedule. The said clarification was issued relying on the Supreme Court judgments. However, before issuing the said clarification, no notice was issued to the assessees and a writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 16867 of 2007 by contending that when the earlier clarification restoring 16 per cent of tax was cancelled, opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee and while cancelling the same and enhancing the tax rate at 16 per cent, no notice having been issued, this court by order dated January 29, 2008 set aside the clarification dated April 7, 2007 and directed the first respondent to issue notice, hear the objections and pass revised orders. Consequentially the first respondent issued clarification on May 30, 2008 stating that no f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d popularly understood and it is fairly well-settled that the words or expressions must be construed in the manner in which they are understood in the trade. No aid can, therefore, be available from the publications of the Indian Standards Institute as to what 'pesticides' are. Even the certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University to say that 'pesticides' would include 'fungicides' cannot advance the case of the appellant because, the Legislature in its supreme wisdom, brought 'fungicides' to be included in entry 66 for the first time only by amending Act 7 of 1977 with effect from September 13, 1977." (b) The Bombay High Court also in Neoluxe India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vikrikar Bhavan, Bombay [2008] 13 VST 157, considered as to whether the decision rendered in a Central Excise Act and Central Excise Tariff has any relevance in interpreting, plastic laminates in entry C-II.61 in Schedule II, Bombay Sales Tax Act. In paragraph 31 it is held as follows (page 172 in 13 VST): "It is only after the decision of CEGAT in the year 1988 in the case of Melamine Fibre Board Ltd. [1988] 36 ELT 139, the petitioners a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12, 1996 (Balaji Timber Corporation v. State of Tamil Nadu [1997] 105 STC 213), considered the issue with regard to the taxability of paper based laminated sheets. In fact, the Taxation Special Tribunal directed to produce the sample of the product by directing the Revenue to inspect the place of business and make a sample purchase of the product, and the said sample was sent to the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, Chennai 32, and a report was directed to be filed as to whether the samples would fall under each of the two entries. The expert certified the product as paper based, i.e., sheets of paper are pasted one over the other with resin and not with gum, and it was not plywood based. The said finding was accepted by the respondents and issued clarifications as stated supra. It is admitted by the respondents that there is no change made in the entry in TNGST Act, 1959. The interpretation, given by the Supreme Court with respect to the Central Excise leviable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, cannot be relied on to issue the impugned circular. Admittedly the entry contained in the TNGST Act was not amended after the interpretation given by the Tamil Nadu Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sl. No. 239 of the Table). Radio terminals in this notification have not been considered as ancillary equipment of BTS. Revenue contends that Notification No. 21/2002 is clarificatory in nature and would be applicable to the radio terminals imported by the respondent in the year 1998 as well. We do not find any substance in this submission. The subsequent notification which defines the scope of ancillary equipment is effective only from March 1, 2002 and does not have retrospective effect. The respondent's clearance pertains to July, 1998 and Notification No. 21/2002 has come into effect with effect from March 1, 2002. It would not apply to the goods which have already been cleared. Notification No. 21/2002 cannot be given retrospective effect. In the absence of any express provision contained in the notification ordinarily it cannot be presumed that the same is retrospective in nature. The learned counsel for the Revenue has failed to show that the subsequent notification is clarificatory in nature. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that with regard to the identical goods imported through Delhi, wherein the items were classified under the same heading, Delhi Customs House exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of section 127A and the proviso to sub-section (2)(b) should be construed together and the annual letting values of all the buildings owned by a person to be taken together for determining the amount to be paid as tax in respect of each building. In our considered view, this position cannot be accepted. The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. Equally impermissible is an interpretation which doss not follow from the plain, unambiguous languages of the statute, Words cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit and intention of the Legislature. The statute should clearly and unambiguously convey the three components of the tax law, i.e., the subject of the tax, the person who is liable to pay the tax and the rate at which the tax is to b....