2021 (3) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es Tax<br>Hon&#39;ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Ms.P.Jayalakshmi for Mr.R.Karthikeyan For the Respondents : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate COMMON ORDER By this Common Order all the writ petitions are being disposed of. 2. The petitioner has challenged the revised assessment orders primarily on the ground that the respondents had wrongly relied on the clarif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18(i) in Part B of the first schedule to the TNGST. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent does not render much assistance to the case of the respondent/Department. One more factor, to be taken into consideration is the proceedings of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling under Section 60 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Though the clarification given....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Excise Tariff heading 8473, deals with computer systems and peripherals." 5. In Paragraph 10, this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Joint Commissioner (CT) Vs CMC Limited., [2014] 75 VST 413(Mad) held as under:- "10. It is not in dispute that &#39;router&#39; is a device falling outside the main part, namely, computer and it is partially or completely dependent on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce, it does not form part of core computer architecture. Therefore, we find that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are justified in holding that the goods sold by the assessee, namely, router, is a computer peripheral, falls under Serial No.22, Entry 68 of Part B of I Schedule of TNVAT Act, 2006." 6. I am therefore inclined to dispose these writ petitions by setting asi....