TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the file of the respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (the Act, for brevity), has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order of assessment, dated 26.02.2018, for the year 2011-12. 3. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court, and filed W.P.Nos.21193 to 21195 of 2017, challenging the assessment orders for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. So far as the assessment order for the year 2009-10 is concerned, since the revision notice was issued by the Assessing Officer himself, the assessment order, dated 30.06.2017, was set aside, giving liberty to the petitioner to submit their objections to the revision notice, dated 28.07.2017. With regard to the assessment order for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner. Pursuant to the direction issued in the earlier Writ Petitions, the assessment has been completed for the year 2010-11 and the petitioner has filed an Appeal as against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Pollachi. In this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the assessment order for the year 2011-12. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer misdirected himself, in not considering the judgments placed by the petitioner, and the assessment has been completed on a totally wrong premise, and therefore, argued that the case should be remanded for fresh consideration. Further, it is pointed out that, though on the basis of the assessment order, revision notices, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that, if the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforementioned decision is applied, then, the liability on the petitioner is only to the extent of cost of material, which, read with Rule 8 of the TNVAT Rules, was only to the extent of 70% of the amount, billed by the petitioners and 1/3rd was eligible for deduction as labour charges. 4.2) Further, it is submitted that, the respondent misdirected himself in law, in addressing to the definition of 'Manufacture', without taking note of the fact that the petitioner was doing only 'Galvanizing Work'. Furthermore, the respondent has wrongly applied the principle of valuation under the Central Excise Law, when the said enactment does not deal with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other issues, which were raised in the revision notice, the learned counsel made an elaborate submission on the factual matrix. Further, it is submitted that, one of the major clients is Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., and the petitioner have requested them to issue Industrial Input Certificate, by their letter, dated 27.03.2018, and that the certificate will be collected without prejudice to the submission made by the petitioner that the transaction is only job work in respect of bulk of the clearances. Therefore, even after obtaining certificate, the petitioner would be entitled to file the same without prejudice to their rights and contention under protest. 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondent on the above submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how, it has to be arrived at. The petitioner's specific case is that, they are only job workers. After taking a decision on the value of the goods, then, the next question, that should be decided, is the rate of tax. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid the tax at the rate of 4%/5%, and what is now demanded from the petitioner is a differential tax. 7. Thus, considering the factual situation involved in the matter, and also taking note of the fact that this is the second time, the petitioner is before the Court, raising very same contentions and that, similar issue is pending before the Appellate Authority, for the assessment year 2010-11, this Court would direct the petitioner to file Appeal before the Appellate Authority. The learned ....