2022 (2) TMI 1066

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to the proceedings in R.C.No.12918/2006 dated 09.08.2007 and (ii) the order dated 28.06.2006 passed by the third respondent in T.A.No.905/2001, confirming the proceedings dated 17.02.2000 of the first respondent in so far as it relates to assessment of a turnover of Rs. 1,06,89,264/- being sales of bent steel tubes affected by the petitioner to M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd., as non declared goods and quash the aforesaid orders. 2. The writ petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and are registered dealers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (in short the Act), on the file of the first respondent. According to the petitioners, they are engaged in manufacture and sale of various items like Cycles, Cy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and should not be assessed under the first schedule. However, the first respondent rejected the objections and passed an order 17.02.2000 purportedly by relying on the order dated 27.05.1997 passed in T.A. No. 157 of 1993 on the file of the third respondent. 3. Challenging the order dated 17.02.2000, the petitioner filed A.P. No. 69 of 2000 before the second respondent. By an order dated 06.07.2001, the second respondent observed that bent steel are declared goods. However, the second respondent, by placing reliance on the order dated 27.05.1997 of the third respondent passed in T.A. No. 157 of 1993 rejected the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a second appeal in T.A. No. 905 of 2001. During the pendency of the appeal, this Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd respondent. Even though the said decision was placed before the third respondent for consideration, it was not considered on an erroneous misconception that the steel goods were manipulated before effecting the sale to make it as if it is a bent steel, within the purview of declared goods. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that decision rendered by this Court in the aforesaid decision has not been challenged by the Revenue and it has become final. While so, the decision of this Court in the case of the assessee in Tube Investments India Limited vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer reported in Volume 129 STC 238 would render the order passed by the third respondent vitiated. 5. On the above contention of the learned cou....