2017 (11) TMI 1315

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the file of the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act [in short  the Act ] and the Central Sales Tax Act, is aggrieved by the assessment order dated 25.10.2006 under the provisions of the TNGST Act. 3.The petitioner has been assessed to higher rate of tax on the ground that the confectionery items produced by him and packed in covers containing the name V.R.S. Confectionery, Rasipuram is to be treated as a brand name and since the petitioner has not registered the same under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, they have to be taxed under the residuary  entry  40 of Part D of the first schedule of the TNGST Act at 12% plus surcharge instead of 4% etc. 4.The assessments for the yea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned, admittedly, the petitioner did not have an opportunity of personal hearing before the clarification was issued.  Though, the petitioner sought for revision of the clarification, the same was rejected by letter dated 31.07.2006. 6.In my considered view, the mentioning of the name of the petitioner being the producer of those goods in the packing materials cannot be construed as a brand or a brand name or a trade mark or a trade name. At best, it can be taken to indicate the name of the producer of goods, which are contained in the packs. 7.As pointed out above, the clarification dated 29.08.2005 having been issued without notice to the petitioner, cannot be thrust upon the petitioner and he cannot be made to suffer by paying high....