2021 (5) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s : Mr.R.Swarnavel Government Advocate[Tax] [in both W.Ps] COMMON ORDER The common relief sought for in the present writ petitions is to quash the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 25.10.2006, imposing 12% tax under residuary Entry No.40 of Part D of the first schedule of the TNGST Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the petitioners are not the manufacturer of brand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt D of the first schedule of the TNGST Act at 12% plus surcharge instead of 4% etc. 4.The assessments for the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 were completed by the Assessing Officer accepting the fact that the petitioner is a producer of the unbranded confectionery and they have charged to tax at 4%. The problem arose during the year 2004-05 and it appears that the Assessing Officer informed the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dmittedly, the petitioner has not coined a word or a mark and the packing contains the petitioner's name, namely, V.R.S.Confectionery, Rasipuram, to indicate as to who produced those confectionery items and wherefrom it has been produced. Therefore, to state that the name V.R.S.Confectionery would amount to a brand or a trade name or a trade mark is a wrong interpretation. So far as 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

....on is held to be not enforceable against the petitioner, on account of the fact that they did not have adequate opportunity to object to the views of the Commissioner. As a consequence of these findings, the impugned assessment order has to be set aside. 8.One more point is to be noted that the confectionery items have been specifically mentioned in entry item-4 (iii) of Part-B of first schedule....