TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....98,38,755/- for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 10.3.2010 and paid tax at 4% treating the machinery as capital goods as defined under Section 2(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The assessment was made under Section 22(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer vide proceedings dated 01.07.2010 based on the returns filed by the dealer. After verification of the records filed, major defect was noticed and the Department was of the view that the machinery sold by the petitioner to IVRCL did not fall under Section 2(11) of the Act and the sale of machinery should be treated as other machinery and therefore, liable for levy of tax at 12.5%. Accordingly, a notice for revision of assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of machinery to IVRCL cannot be classified under Sec.2(11) of the Act. The objections filed by the dealer are not convincing and acceptable. I, therefore, overrule the objections filed by the dealer and confirm the proposals of revision and revise the assessment of the dealer under Sec.27(1) of the Act for the year 2009-10 as follows: Sale of Machinery : Rs.5,98,38,755/- @ 12.5% Tax Due: Rs.74,79,844/- Tax paid: Rs.23,92,550/- Balance: Rs.50,86,294/- 2. Since the order passed under Section 27(1) of the Act provides for appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Erode, the assessee persuaded the appeal and we extract the grounds taken by the assessee hereunder for necessity: "GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The order of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying 12.5% and not accepting 4%. 10. The activity of crushing of Boulders into a smaller pieces amounts to 'Manufacture' as per the definition clause mentioned in the Act and hence the equipments which are used in this regard is taxable at 4% only and not under 12.5%. 11. The goods dealt with by the appellants falls under the section 2(11) of the Act. 12. Without giving any acceptable basis or reasoning, the Assessing Officer erred in concluding the activity of the appellants is not 'Manufacture' and goods involved is such activity is not capital goods and this view held by the AO is based on surmises and conjuctures only." 3. The assessee has also filed written arguments on 10.9.2014 taking a primary ground that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such a transformation that new and different article must emerge from the manufacture having a distinctive name, character or use. It was also held in the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs. O.P.Aiyar (1992) reported in 87 STC 339(Mad) it was held that "when blue metal jelly obtained in the process of crushing of stone boulders and converted in to smaller stones of varying sizes, there is no manufacturing process involved". Following this principles, the contention of the appellants that there is manufacturing activity at the hands of the purchasers of the machinery sold by the appellants, is not acceptable. Section 2(11) defines capital goods, as the plant and machinery used for manufacture, the result of which emerges a change in any substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacturing only and it would attract the provisions of Section 2(11) of the Act. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. It is relevant to note that that relevant papers have not been filed and the decisions cited has not been furnished by the petitioner. 9. We find that the so called objection dated 20.6.2014 recorded in the order passed under Section 27(1), has not been filed in the typed set of papers. In the grounds of appeal, which we extracted above, there is no plea to show that the argument now taken before us, had been taken before the Authority. Except reiterating that the goods are capital goods and the process amounts to manufacture, no specific details of the d....