DEEKAY EXPORTS LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A.Nos.926 and 927 of 2012 are directed against the common order in W.P.Nos.22004 and 22005 of 2004 dated 27.09.2011. The said writ petitions were filed challenging the assessment orders under the provisions of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act (PGST Act) for the assessment year 2003~04 and for a writ of Declaration to declare the second condition contained under the First Proviso to G.O.Ms.No.35/99/F.2 dated 30.03.1999 is illegal and ultravires.

(2.) Along with the appeals, three writ petitions have been tagged in which the petitioner/appellant has challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, Pondicherry assessing the petitioner/appellant to tax under Section 13(2) of PGST Act r/w. Section 81 of Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007) PVAT Act) for the assessment years 2005~06, 2006~07 and 2007~08.

(3.) Writ Appeal Nos.595 to 598 of 2014 were filed challenging the common order in W.P.Nos.24271 to 24274 of 2011 dated 11.03.2014. In the said writ petitions, the appellant challenged the notices dated 28.09.2011 issued by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the PGST Act proposing that the claim made by the appellant for exemption for the relevant period is proposed to be rejected and the entire turnover is proposed to be taxed at 35% as per Sl.No.1 under Part~L of the First Schedule of PGST Act r/w. Section 81(4) of PVAT Act. These notices were issued for the assessment years 2004~05, 2005~06, 2006~07 and 2007~08. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Bench. As the legal issue involved in all these cases are identical, namely, as to whether the appellant is entitled for exemption from payment of sales tax, all the writ appeals as well as the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed by this common judgment/order.