2019 (3) TMI 339

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Chennai dated 30.05.2011. 2. Heard Mr.J.R.Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.D.Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The Tax Case Revision has been admitted vide order dated 13.07.2012 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the tribunal ought to have held that there was no law providing for the levy of additional sales tax for the period from 01.04.1999 to 18.06.1999 in respect of dealers like the petitioners whose head office was situated outside the State of Tamil Nadu. (ii) Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that Section 2(1)(aa) of the Act, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. 5. The assessment year under consideration is 1999-2000. The petitioner are manufacturers of CI Spun Pipes and D.I. Fittings and reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 27,37,88,075/- and Rs. 27,33,69,140/- respectively. In the annual return in Form A1 filed for the assessment year under consideration, the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment vide an order dated 28.03.2002 levied additional sales tax at 1.5% on the taxable turnover and completed the assessment. The petitioner preferred appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Kancheepuram (First Appellate Authority) challenging the levy of additional sales tax. 6. The petitioner filed appeal to the Fir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... than the threshold limit of Rs. 25 Crores and consequently there can be no liability. The second contention is that the assessment year should be split up into two parts i.e., for the period from 01.04.1999 to 20.06.1999. When there was no liability and from the period from 21.06.1999 to 31.03.2000, when additional sales tax was made applicable to dealers like the appellants and even if it is so, the turnover having not exceeded, the threshold limit and no additional sales tax is paid. 8. We have elaborately heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. We need not labour much to decide the question, as identical question was decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Philips India Limit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ealer for the entire year. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the petitioner that the year should be split into two, is impermissible as we cannot add words to a statute which are clear and unambiguous. 10. In the case of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. S.S.D.Oil Mills Co.Ltd., [W.P.No.1060 of 2005] dated 17.03.2001, the Hon'ble Divison Bench took a similar decision as in the case of Phillips India and the operative portion of the order reads as follows: "6....... The Assessing Officer calculated the additional sales tax at the rate of 2% on the taxable turnover for the whole of the year. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal held that for the period 01.04.2001 to 31.10.2001, the turnover exceeded Rs....