MAN ALUMINIUM Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER FAC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this writ petition is whether the seller who has furnished Form XVII declaration as per Section 3(3) of the Act is liable to pay the differential rate of tax or the purchaser who has purchased the goods by issue of Form XVII declaration under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959(herein after referred to as Act).

(2.) THE petitioner firm is a registered dealer on the files of the respondent herein. THEy are carrying on the business of buying and selling aluminium. During the year 2003-2004, they have effected a sales of aluminium extrusion for Rs.1,23,85,333/- at a concessional rate of 3% against form XVII declaration which has also been determined by the respondent. THEreafter, the respondent by his proceedings dated 12.4.2005, pointed out that the petitioner is not eligible to effect sales against Form XVII declaration and proposed to revise the assessment, directing the petitioner to pay the differential rate of tax. Hence, the petitioner has filed its objection dated 16.5.2005.

(3.) IN the instant case, since the issue involved is similar to the judgments cited supra, the respondent's decision holding that the petitioner is not eligible to effect the sales against Form XVII declaration and thereupon directed the petitioner to pay the differential rate of tax under the proviso to Section 3(3)(b) of the Act, is unsustainable. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in view of the facts and circumstances and the question involved and the rulings of the Supreme Court and this Court referred to supra, the impugned order of the respondent dated 16.11.2005 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is dismissed.