Tax appeal case order No.358/01 and Appeal No.250/02 dated 05.10.2004 quash the same. For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondents : Mr.Mohammed Saffiq Special Government Pleader (Taxes) —–“total turnover” is concerned, we have no doubt that the “total turnover” would include even the exempted turnover.
by
Sekar Reporter
·
May 12, 2020
[5/12, 07:18] Sekarreporter: [5/12, 07:17] Sekarreporter: Order in W.P.Nos.8851 & 8852/2005 dt.09.03.2020 [M/s.The Coimbatore Cosmopolitan Club V. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal] 1/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 09.03.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.Nos.8851 and 8852 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.9554 and 9555 of 2005 M/s.The Coimbatore Cosmopolitan Club, Rep. by its Honarary Secretary, B.Selvaraj, No.200, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. … Petitioner in both WPs Vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench), Coimbatore. 2.The Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore. 3.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy Road Circle, Coimbatore. … Respondents in both WPs Prayers: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in his Order in Coimbatore Tribunal Appeal No.358/01 and Appeal No.250/02 dated 05.10.2004 quash the same. For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondents : Mr.Mohammed Saffiq Special Government Pleader (Taxes) http://www.judis.nic.in [5/12, 07:18] Sekarreporter: 🙏🏽🙏🏽 [5/12, 07:19] Sekarreporter: Order in W.P.Nos.8851 & 8852/2005 dt.09.03.2020 [M/s.The Coimbatore Cosmopolitan Club V. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal] 9/10 for the Assessee that the provisions after its substitution from 01.04.1999 should be held to be clarificatory in nature and to apply to the period even prior to 01.04.1999 i.e. Assessment year 1997-1998 which is the assessment year involved in the present case. A substantive provision of the Act unless specifically made retrospective by the Legislature cannot, by a deeming fiction, be construed to be a retrospective provision. 6.As far as the words “total turnover” is concerned, we have no doubt that the “total turnover” would include even the exempted turnover. Since obviously the total turnover of the Assessee in question for the Assessment Year 1997-98, 1998-99 was beyond the prescribed limit of Rs.50 Lakhs viz., being Rs.72,34,527/- and Rs.82,56,668/- as quoted above, we have no doubt that the learned Tribunal and the authorities below were justified in not applying the Section 3-D of the Act to the present case. We do not find any merit in the present Writ Petitions filed by the Assessee and they are liable to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. (V.K. J.) (R.S.K. J.) 09.03.2020 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Sgl http://www.judis.nic.in