2013 (4) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent. 2. The petitioner is a registered tea dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short, "VAT Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the Act") as well as a registered buyer member with the Tea Board and is doing tea business for the past twenty years. It is stated that during the assessment year 2007-08, the petitioner had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,65,27,733 and also remitted tax at four per cent. as per entry 137, Part B of the First Schedule to the VAT Act. The respondent, accepting the turnover reported by the petitioner, passed an order under section 22(2) of the VAT Act. Even during previous years, the petitioner's turnovers had been accepted and tax was paid at four per ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, is without any jurisdiction and against the statute. 3. Based on the above background pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the original assessment under section 22(2) of the VAT Act, has to be accepted and that when the tea sample of the petitioner satisfies the standards prescribed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is not for the respondent now to say that the same is an adulterated coloured one and therefore, it comes under the purview of residuary entry 69, Part C of the First Schedule to the VAT Act. 4. The learned Government Advocate, by going through the materials annexed in the typed-set of papers and the impugned revision notice, would contend that the petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the markets of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Even though the return filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2007-08 was accepted by the respondent, since it was found that the tea packets supplied by the petitioner were adulterated, the respondent has issued the impugned notice, proposing to levy tax at 12.5 per cent. on the taxable turnover of Rs. 3,65,27,733 and the difference of tax comes to Rs. 31,04,857, and calling for the petitioner to file objections within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the above revision notice, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition on the ground that the action of the respondent in treating the commodity as coming under the residuary entry No. 69, P....