TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... posed to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants as to whether the department has preferred appeals against the orders passed in other writ petitions, it is submitted that in some of the cases, appeals have been preferred by the department and those appeals are yet to be numbered. The numbers of those appeals have not been placed before us and therefore, we are inclined to conclude that the order passed in the other writ petitions which are covered in the common order dated 17.07.2009 would bind the department, as a consequence of which, the appellants would not be justified in prosecuting this appeal. 2. That apart, though the Division Bench ordered notice to the respondent / assessee in this appeal by order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all under Entry No.22 (iv), Part-C of the First Schedule of the TNGST Act. This clarification was pursuant to an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in O.P.No.120 of 2006 dated 12.04.1996. Based on the said decision of the Tribunal, the assessments were made by the Assessing Officers for all the years and they had collected the tax at 10%. 4. While so, the respondent / assessee received a notice from the Assessing Officer proposing to reopen the completed assessment and to re-assess the sales turnover on paper based decorative laminated sheets at 16%. The respondent / assessee approached the Court on receipt of such notice. There were other cases where pursuant to such notices for reopening, revision of assessment was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st appellant is valid, the same cannot be applied retrospectively. 7. The appellants resisted the contention raised by the respondent / assessee by contending that the Hon'ble Supreme Court having declared the law on the subject giving interpretation with regard to paper based laminated sheet, though under the entries contained in the Central Excise Tariff, 1985, the product being the same, the clarification issued by the first appellant stating that the product is liable to be taxed at 16% is valid. 8. After considering the submissions made on either side, the Writ Court proceeded to consider the relevant entry under the TNGST Act, namely, Entry No.22 (iv) of Part C and Entry No.8 (ii) of Part E and pointed out that the first appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7, wherein a similar issue was considered with regard to 'Pesticides' and 'Insecticides', which were defined under Section 3(e) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Central Act), wherein the Division Bench took note of the fact that the Insecticide Act, 1968, defined fungicides and weedicides to be included in the expression 'pesticides' and held that the legislature is presumed to be aware of the need of the people and while classifying the entries in a particular schedule, if it chose not to include certain commodities in the first schedule, its intention is obvious that it did not wish to extend the benefit of single point taxation in respect of those commodities. 10. The Writ Court also took note of the decision of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntry contained in the TNGST Act has not been amended after the interpretation given by the Special Tribunal and the circular issued by the first appellant cannot be sustained and the department was not justified in reopening the assessments already made and tax having been collected. 12. By referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of India vs. Indian Tobacco Association, reported in (2005) 187 ELT 162 (SC), Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune vs. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd., reported in (2006) 198 ELT 330 (SC), Commissioner of Customs vs. Spice Telecom, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 704 and Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 452, it w....