TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner had filed Writ Petitions before this Court, challenging the vires of Section 2 (11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter, referred to as 'TNVAT Act') as well as the consequential notices issued by the first respondent for the relevant assessment years. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench, by a common order, dated 05.04.2016, and therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner, giving them opportunity to file their objections. In response to the such notice, the petitioner informed the first respondent that, they are in the process of filing Review Petitions against the common order, dated 05.04.2016. Though such contention was raised by the petitioner/dealer, since no orders (staying the operation of the order, dated 05.04.2016) produced by them before the first respondent, the impugned demand notices have been issued, claiming the differential tax at 8.5%. 4. The following facts would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of these Writ Petitions;- i) The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sale of various goods, such as concrete mixing (batching) plants, pipelines, concrete mixers, concrete pump....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id by the petitioner. The petitioner filed elaborate objections to the said notice, and specifically sought for an opportunity of personal hearing, and the first respondent, without affording opportunity of personal hearing, rejected the petitioner's claim by passing the impugned orders. 5. On noting the above submission made by Mr. C. Natarajan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court, while entertaining these Writ Petitions on 24.08.2017, granted an interim order, directing the first respondent not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner till the learned Special Government Pleader obtains proper instructions from the first respondent, and adjourned the cases to 29.08.2017. Thereafter, when the Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader has produced the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petitions, for impleading the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling, as party respondent in the Writ Petitions, which were ordered by this Court, by order, dated 18.09.2017 . 6. The learned Senior Counsel, while referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd under Section 48 A (1) of the TNVAT Act, the second respondent is entitled only to clarify any point concerning the rate of tax. It was further pointed out that the dispute before the Division Bench is not with regard to rate of tax, but with respect to the validity of the expression "in the State'', appearing in Section 2 (11), on account of which, the expression ''capital goods'' gets circumscribed. Therefore, the Division Bench observed that, reliance placed upon the Ruling is not of any assistance to the petitioner. 8. Further, it is submitted that, in the case of R G E Digital Imaging Solutions (P) Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Kelambakkam Assessment Circle and another, in W.P.No.19493 of 2017, dated 31.07.2017, it was observed by this Court that, similarly placed assessee cannot be treated differently and correct rate of tax has to be collected from the dealer, and ordered that the petitioner be assessed at the rate of 5% on plant and machinery until the revision of clarification, dated 22.07.2014 is completed, and directed the petitioner therein to file Review Petition as against the clarification, dated 22.07.2014. It is submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that the petitioner has only sought for quashing the impugned orders, dated 19.06.2017, and they cannot now seek to canvass on the validity of the advance ruling or such other matters. Thus, the Division Bench, having considered all the issues and held the same against the petitioner, the first respondent cannot be expected to consider the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench once again, and pass orders. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders impugned herein does not call for interference. 12. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that, the present Writ Petitions are maintainable, since the earlier round of litigation was challenging the vires of the Section 2 (11) of the TNVAT Act, wherein, the Division Bench permitted the dealers concerned to file objections to the revision notices and the petitioner is entitled to challenge the impugned orders as not in consonance with the settled legal principles or for such other matters, and the question in the present Writ Petitions was neither directly, nor was canvassed constructively as issue in the earlier Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner. In support of such contention, reliance was place....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der. (iii) Until the expiration of a period of 30 days from the date of issue of a copy of this order, the respondents shall not take coercive steps. (iv) In respect of petitioner who deal with capital goods used in the State but who are not extended the benefit of the concessional rate of tax, on account of a lack of proper understanding of the definition of the expression 'manufacture' appearing in Section 2(27), the appellate authority shall take note of the observations that we have made in paragraphs 74 to 77, while deciding their appeals. (v) While dealing with the appeals of the petitioners, the Appellate Authorities shall note of the second proviso to Section 42(3). All the writ petitions are disposed of to the above effect. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected M.Ps are closed. After we pronounced orders, it was mentioned by Mrs. R. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioners that some writ petitions also arise out revision notices. 2. In so far those dealers are concerned, they are given a time limit oif 15 days from the date of issue of a copy of this order to submit their objecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority/second respondent by filing Review Petition, if acceded to, then, it would amount to granting the relief, which the petitioner was not able to secure in the earlier Writ Petitions, which were heard by the Division Bench. 17. The decision rendered by this Court, in the case of R G E Digital Imaging Solutions (P) Ltd., (supra) cannot be of any assistance to the case of the petitioner, as the issues and the facts thereunder were not akin to the facts in the batch of cases, which were heard by the Division Bench. Having steered clear of this position, it has to be seen as to whether the first respondent is justified in passing the impugned orders, purportedly, to be consequence upon the decision of the Division Bench, dated 05.04.2016. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer failed to note that the Division Bench has only decided the constitutional validity of the Section 2 (11), and with regard to other issues, granted liberty to the dealers to submit their objections, if they have approached at the stage of the revision notices, as in the petitioner's case. 18. Thus, the first respondent was bound to consider the objections filed by the petitioner, and pass a speaki....