2016 (9) TMI 922

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer and dealer in Unplasticized Poly Vinyl Chloride Window system, (UPVC Window), and they are registered dealer, on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, TNVAT Act). In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of assessment, dated 30.06.2016, for the assessment year, 2014-15. 3. The petitioner filed their returns in Form I, under the TNVAT Act, and were deemed to have been assessed to tax, under Section 22 (2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, on perusal of the returns, observed that the petitioner had claimed exemption from tax on sale of UPVC Doors and Windows made to M/s.Mahindra Residential Developers Limite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax exemption, as per proceedings of the Assistant Development Commissioner, dated 08.06.2009. The letter submitted by the co-developer, dated 20.03.2009, does not specifically list the service rendered by the petitioner, in the approved list. 5. Thus, the respondent proposed that, construction done by the co-developer is not related to the activities of developing, operating and maintaining SEZ, and is ineligible for grant of exemption from payment of taxes on purchases of the goods from local registered dealers in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was granted 15 days' time to submit their objections, which was availed of by the petitioner, and they had submitted their objections on 23.06.2016. The petitioner contended that, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....velopment Commissioner, dated 08.06.2009 is erroneous, since the said letter pertain to the approval of the specified services, relating to service tax claimed by the co-developer. Therefore, it is contended that the said letter should not have been relied upon. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the exemption granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 30.12.2006. Furthermore, it is contended that the respondent, erroneously, referred to Rule 11 A of the Special Economic Zone Rules 2006, which came into force only from 02.02.2014 to 02.02.2015, and the same would not be applicable for the relevant assessment year, and this aspect of the matter was not mentioned in the show caus....