LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-366

DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VALLUVARKOTTAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE AND ORS.

Decided On December 08, 2014
DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD. Appellant
V/S
Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of manufacture of cane sugar. The petitioner has established its factory in Tirunelveli District and Tiruvannamalai District. The petitioner are registered dealers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act.

(2.) THE petitioner in this writ petition seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated November 14, 2014 which is an assessment order for the assessment year 2004 -2005 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (TNGST).

(3.) THOUGH the notice dated June 23, 2006 deals with the other issues as well, in this writ petition, we are not concerned with the other issues and it is confined only to the import of raw sugar and on consequential sale. The petitioner was granted 15 days time to submit their objections. While so, based on an inspection which was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner on February 3, 2005 and February 4, 2005, the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Enforcement (Central), Chennai, issued a notice dated July 17, 2006 calling upon the petitioner to furnish, among other things, the details of physical quantities of imported raw sugar, received, consumed and in stock for the two factories for the period 2004 -2005. The petitioner submitted their reply to the enforcement officer, by reply dated August 25, 2006, disclosing the details sought for. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a reply to the assessing officer to the notice dated June 23, 2006 that the imported raw sugar was processed and re -exported as white sugar. Further, it was stated that they have fulfilled the export obligation as per the advance licence up to August 24, 2006 and the balance quantity will be exported as and when the export ban is lifted, since there is a ban for export of sugar at the relevant time. Further, it was stated that what they have sold locally is the processed white sugar of a quantity of 37,649 metric tones during the assessment year 2004 -05.