Tvl.P.R.Srinivasan And Sons vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 August, 2011

Madras High Court
Tvl.P.R.Srinivasan And Sons vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 August, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 17/08/2011

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P.(MD)No.3127 of 2007
and
MP(MD)No.1 of 2007

Tvl.P.R.Srinivasan and Sons,
represented by its Partner Thiru.P.R.Srinivasan,
604, Main Road,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.				  ..Petitioner

Vs

1.  The State of Tamil Nadu,
    represented by its Secretary
    to Government,
    Department of Commercial Taxes,
    Fort.St.George,
    Chennai - 600 009.

2.  The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
    Second Floor, Ezhilagam,
    Chepauk,
    Chennai - 600 005.

3.  The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II,
    Ettayapuram Road,
    Kovilpatti,
    Tuticorin District.				  ..Respondents.	

Prayer

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
exempt the vermicelli Ada from the payment of Tax under the Tamil Nadu Value
Added Vax, 2006, without reference to the clarification issued by the second
respondent, dated 12.03.2007.

!For Petitioner  ... M/s.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali
^For Respondents ... Ms.S.Bharathi
		     Govt.Advocate

:ORDER

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the clarification, dated
12.03.2007, addressed to Tvl.Aurofood Private Limited, pointing out that ‘Ada’
and ‘Vermicelli’ were taxable at 12.5% under Part-C of Schedule-II of Tamil
Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006, w.e.f. 01.01.2007.

2. The only ground on which the clarification is challenged by the
petitioner, is that on an earlier occasion, vide letter D.Dis./Acts Cell-
V/23842/95, dated 18.04.1995, addressed to the petitioner, it was clarified that
‘Vermicelli’ and ‘Vermicelli Ada’ were one and the same item, whereas by way of
subsequent impugned notification, this clarification is sought to be
modified/done away with.

3. The contention is misconceived.

4. The impugned clarification deals with ‘Ada’ and ‘Macroni’ which has
nothing to do with ‘Vermicelli’ and ‘Vermicelli Ada’.

5. The clarification is also not addressed to the petitioner nor the
petitioner is manufacturer of ‘Ada’ or ‘Macroni’. Therefore, the petitioner has
no locus standi to challenge the clarification, address to a third party.

6. The Writ Petition being totally misconceived is ordered to be
dismissed.

7. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

8. No costs.

vsn

To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary
to Government,
Department of Commercial Taxes,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Second Floor, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.

3. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II,
Ettayapuram Road,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *