2015 (12) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner. A. N. R. Jayaprathap, Government Advocate, for the respondent. ORDER Heard Mr. D. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. N. R. Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (the Act), and in this writ petition the petitioner has ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice dated July 31, 2006, proposing to re-determine the total and taxable turnover. Though such notice was issued, it was not proceeded to and another notice was issued on October 24, 2007, combining all the proposals in the earlier notices. According to the respondent, the levy of four percent. is incorrect since the commodity is taxable at 12 per cent, as per the clarification issued by the Depar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e product, which was accepted and given then only the product was assessed to tax at four per cent. Therefore, the petitioner requested for accepting the explanation and for passing an order. Pursuant thereto, the respondent has passed the impugned order. 5. From the bare reading of the impugned order, it is seen that there is absolutely no discussion as to why the product should be classified ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontains electronic integrated circuits and assemblies, then it would fall under the sub-item No. 3 of G. O. Ms. No. 30 dated March 27, 2002 and consequently fall under entry 18 of Part B of the First Schedule and in such an event, the rate of tax would be only at four per cent. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is held to be bad in l....