G BHASKARAN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned proceedings of the third respondent passed in T.A.No. 164/99, dated 11-05-2000 and quash the same.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner would submit that, he is a dealer in pulses and grams on the file of the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and also under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; that for the assessment year CST 1996-97, they returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 16,01,210/- and Rs. Nil respectively, through their monthly returns; that the petitioner claimed exemption on the above turnover under Entry 81 of the Part B of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act 1959 read with Section 8 (2-A) of the CST Act, 1956; that the first respondent disallowed the claim of exemption on ground that the exemption is a conditional exemption and not general exemption and thereby, for not fulfilling conditions of Section 8(2-A) of the CST Act, 1956, and thereby, passed the assessment proceedings for the said year 1996-97 as per its proceeding dated 29-05-1998.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that an Appeal filed under Section 9(2) of the CST Act 1956 read with Section 31 of the TNGST Act 1959 before the second respondent in A.P.No. CST 97/98, dated 23-10-1998, the order of the first respondent came to be confirmed, further holding that the Entry 81 of the Part B of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959, is only a conditional exemption and that the petitioner is not satisfying the conditions of Section 8 (2-A) of the CST Act, 1956; that a further Appeal against the order of the second respondent, dated 23-10-1998 before the third respondent in T.A.No. 164/99 also got dismissed confirming the views of the first and second respondents as per its order dated 11-05-2000, which is impugned herein. Hence, the petitioner has come forward to challenge the said order passed by the third respondent on certain grounds such as that the order impugned passed in T.A.No. 164/99, dated 11-05-2000, failed to substantiate how the Entry 81 of the Part B of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959 is a conditional exemption; that the third respondent failed to follow the principles of law laid down by this Court and The Honourable Supreme Court of India in interpreting Section 8(2-A) of the CST Act 1956; that the word "otherwise than" occurring in explanation to Section 8(2-A) of the CST Act 1956 must be interpreted as an exemption to what is stated earlier in the explanation and if it is so construed the turnover limit occurring in the Entry 81 of Part B of the Third Schedule to the TNGST Act 1959 will mean a general exemption, on such grounds the petitioner would pray to grant the relief extracted supra.