2020 (1) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mr. V. Haribabu AGP(T) ORDER The petitioner is engaged in trading of unbranded types of furniture. The assessment was completed on 24.01.2011 for the assessment year 2007-08 accepting the claim of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79 CT & RE (B2) dated to 23.3.2007. As per the said notification, unbranded steel furniture were liable to tax at 4%. 2. The petitioner was later issued with a not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with effect from 1.1.2007." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by a clarification dated 27.6.2007 bearing Reference No. VAT/Cell/28588/2007 (VCC 770), the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had already clarified as follows:- 1      Small portion of wood or plywood is isued on top portion 80% of the table is only steel If unbranded it is 4%. If branded it is 12.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....records of the petitioner, it was found that manufactured and sold by the petitioner were not hundred percent steel furniture and therefore they were liable to tax at 12.5% under item 69 (C,C No.3) Part C of the 1st Schedule Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. It is noted that the impugned order has been passed by placing reliance on the Comme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of commerce in the trade. It is not the clarification or a particular view of the superior officer which should weigh his mind though such clarifications in the matters of classifications may be a relevant factor. However, they are not the only factors which are relevant. 10. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the 1st responden....