MANIKANDAN TYRES Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), SANKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Haribabu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), who took notice for the respondent and with their consent, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order of the respondent dated 09.10.2015.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incentive schemes extended to the customers do not form part of sale consideration and therefore, inclusion of all the incentives under taxable net is highly arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, Section 84 application was filed. However, according to her, the respondent has erred in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has challenged the assessment proceedings so also Section 19(20) inserted by Amendment Act 22 of 2010 vide notification dated 19.08.2010. She would further add that it is not in dispute that the writ petitions filed were dismissed and SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, according to her, when Section 84(4) of the Act empowers the respondent to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner, the respondent cannot reject the petition on flimsy grounds.