TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring for the parties, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2.The petitioners are the manufacturers of Tobacco products. Though, prior to the 2006-2007 Assessment Year, they involved in manufacturing of some other Tobacco product, only from the Assessment year 2006-2007, they claimed to have started producing the product called "Chewing Tobacco". The said product 'Chewing Tobacco' has not been included in the schedule appended to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short, 'the TNVAT Act'), thereby, the said product is not a taxable item. 3.Accordingly, insofar as the Assessment Year 2007-2008 is concerned, the Assessment has been made in respect of these two petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been issued, whereby, the applicability of the amended provision, is made from the date 12.07.2011, by G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 11.07.2011. 7.Thereby, the product called 'Chewing Tobacco' has become a taxable item, only with effect from 12.07.2011. 8.It is to be noted that as against the insertion of the said product, the Association of the Tamil Nadu Scented & Chewing Manufacturers Association and others, filed writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.21237 of 2011 etc., batch, where from 15.09.2011, there has been an interim order of stay and those writ petitions were pending up to 2019, as those writ petitions were finally disposed of only on 03.10.2019, by a common order passed by a learned Judge of this Court in the matter of Tvl.Makk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs are not liable to pay tax for the said product 'Chewing Tobacco' for the relevant Assessment Year 2007-2008, as this was pursuant to the notice of demand issued by the respondents, dated 08.07.2021, where, the respondents had stated that, by virtue of the disposal of the writ petitions as referred to above, by order, dated 03.10.2019, these petitioners and other similarly placed person should be liable to pay tax for the said product 'Chewing Tobacco' even for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. 12.However, the said rectification petitions, dated 19.07.2021 and 15.07.2021, filed by the petitioners have been kept pending and not disposed of. Unmindful of the same, now, a communication has been issued by the Assistant Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent is liable to be interfered with and consequently, a direction can be given to the first respondent to decide and dispose the petitioners' rectification petitions. 15.I have heard Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, who on instructions, would submit that, the tax due in respect of each of the petitioners for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 was calculated, based on the assessment made for the particular year, that has been made out of the records available with the first respondent office. Moreover, insofar as the said product is concerned, admittedly, the petitioners manufactured that product even in the relevant Assessment Year and therefore, insofar as the closed Assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contended. 18.I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 19.It is a fact remains that, the product called 'Chewing Tobacco', admittedly manufactured by these petitioners from 2006-07 was not at all included as one of the item scheduled in TNVAT Act as a taxable item. Realising this omission or lacuna or with the wisdom of the legislature, Act 30 of 2011 was brought in, under which, the TNVAT Act, 2006 underwent amendment, wherein as per Section 3 of the Amending Act, after Serial No.12 to second schedule Serial No.13 was inserted, whereas, one of the item in Serial No.(vii)-'Chewing Tobacco' also has been me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the time of five years limitation period, as contemplated under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. Therefore, that objection raised by the learned Government Advocate cannot be countenanced. 22.In that view of the matter, this Court feel that, unless the rectification petitions filed by the petitioners is decided by taking into account the aforesaid factual as well as the legal aspects projected by the petitioners, the first respondent cannot proceed further pursuant to the alleged due for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders requiring the bank authorities to recover the amount and to pay it in favour of the first respondent may not be justifiable and accordingly, those orders are liable to be inter....