KARTHIK ELECTRIC CONTROLS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT . The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) waives service. By consent, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

(2.) THE appellant/firm is engaged in the manufacture of control panels and is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Podanur Circle, Coimbatore. The appellant was assessed by the assessing officer on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 28,56,370 in proceedings bearing TNGST No. 1800946/1996 -97 dated February 27, 1998. At the time of original assessment, the appellant was allowed concessional rate of tax at three per cent on a turnover of Rs. 14,86,537, being the sale of control panels manufactured by them. Subsequently, a pre -revision notice dated March 26, 2002 was issued by the assessing officer on the ground that the control panels manufactured and sold by the appellant, even though are electrical equipments, they come under 'plant and machinery' and they are used to operate and control the machines and as such, they are not eligible for concessional rate of tax under Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the Act', in short). Though the above turnover of Rs. 14,86,537 was assessed by the assessing officer at the time of original assessment at three per cent (against form XVII) under Section 3(3) of the Act, the assessing officer proposed to assess the same at the rate of 12 per cent under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act by disallowing the concessional rate of tax already extended. The appellant filed detailed objections vide its letter dated April 12, 2002. However, by the impugned order dated December 11, 2003, the assessing officer disallowed the concessional rate of tax at three per cent on a turnover of Rs. 14,86,537. The order of the assessing officer has been challenged by the appellant before the learned single judge in the present writ petition, which came to be dismissed holding that the appellant has an alternative remedy of preferring a statutory appeal.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the Supreme Court had also an occasion to consider a similar provision relating to the Central Sales Tax Act in Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1986] 62 STC 112, and the Supreme Court, while dealing with the purpose behind the rules, held as follows (at page 118):. The purpose for the making of the rule would, however, be frustrated if after the dealer proves in the manner indicated in Rule 12A he has to prove again how the purchasing dealer has dealt with the goods after he obtains the certificate from a registered dealer. That would make the working of the Act and rule unworkable.