TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....995- 96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 is the taxability of the consideration received on sale of unredeemed articles by the auctioneers in terms of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short 'Act'). The assessee's contention at the stage of assessment was that it is the auctioneer that would be so liable. 2. The above stand was initially canvassed before us as well and we have, vide order dated 15.10.2024, extracted below, rejected the said contention. Print the name of Ms. Amirta Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, for respondents. 2. In W.P.No.11208 of 2008, a specific contention of the petitioner is that the manner of computation of penalty is unclear in the impugned intimation dated 31.03.2008. Specific r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether a local agent of a non-resident principal, who carried on business of his own also transfers the goods of non-resident principal to his own business can be considered as a transaction of sale chargeable to tax. The learned Judges overruling a similar contention held that the concerned agent held two different capacities-one as an agent of a non-resident principal-and the other as proprietor of his own business, two different identities altogether, while transferring the goods of the non-resident principal to himself, he not only acted as agent of his non-resident principal but also as a purchaser and there is nothing in law which militates against the said conclusions and consequent tax liability on such person. We have no hesitation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[(2002) 125 STC 505]. 10. List on 21.10.2024. 3. In regard to the additional submissions made in the context of applicable rate of tax, written statements from the assessing authority have been obtained both on 18.09.2024 and today (29.10.2024) to the effect that the appropriate rate of tax for the period 12.03.1993 and 16.07.1996 would be 3% and for the period post 17.07.1996, the rate would be 4%. The assessing authority has adopted 4% as the rate of tax for all the assessment years in question. This is clearly erroneous and directions for rectification have been issued in conclusion. 4. On the question of penalty, learned counsel for petitioner would rely on the decision in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Limited v C....