2018 (10) TMI 347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar 2004-05 under TNGST was completed and an order of assessment was passed by the second respondent on 15.11.2006, wherein the second respondent had allowed exemption of Rs. 1,80,16,025/-, representing value of building materials purchased in the course of interstate trade. However, on 11.06.2008, the second respondent issued a notice of proposal for revising the assessment by rejecting the claim of exemption for interstate purchase of building materials for the above said value of Rs. 1,80,16,025/-. The petitioner made their objection on 24.06.2008. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 03.11.2008, disallowing the exemption already granted in the original order of assessment in respect of inter state purchase of buil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He further submitted that the present impugned order was passed only after issuing notice of proposal and considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to such notice. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order need not be interfered with. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6.The issue involved in this case is in respect of purchases of the building materials made by the petitioner effected through interstate sale. The petitioner claimed exemption under Section 3B(2)(b) on such interstate sale purchase and such claim was, in fact, accepted by the Assessing Officer, while passing the order of assessment on 15.11.2006. There is a clear finding rendered by the Assessing Officer that the purchases ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... effectively make a reply and defend the case before the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee in this case has given their reply on 24.06.2008 and requested to drop the proceedings. They strongly relied on Section 3B (2)(b) of the Act in support of their claim for exemption. The Assessing Officer, apart from rejecting the claim made by the petitioner, has stated the following reasons for disallowing the exemption. "The objections raised have been carefully examined by me. The CST Act 1956 has been amended from 11.5.2002 enabling the states to levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract in the course of interstate trade or commerce also. Therefore the decision relied on by the assessees (88....