{"id":65937,"date":"2002-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002"},"modified":"2016-04-22T07:58:36","modified_gmt":"2016-04-22T02:28:36","slug":"the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS          \n\n DATED: 06.03.2002  \n\n CORAM:  \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR            \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN             \n\n TAX CASE NO.292 of 1994   \n(Reference No.137 of 1994)\n\n The State of Tamil Nadu\nrepresented by the\nDeputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes   \nMadras (North)\nDivision, Greams Road, \nMadras-600 006.                                 ...  Petitioner      \n\nVersus \n\n Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited\n23, Mount Road, Madras-600 006.      ... Respondent       \n\n\n        Prayer:  Revision Petition to  revise  the  Order  of  the  Sales  Tax\nAppellate  Tribunal  (Main  Bench),  Madras  dated  26.02.1993  and  passed in\nTribunal Appeal No.962 of 1992.\n\n!               For Petitioner :  Mr.T.Ayyasamy, Spl.Govt.Pleader\n                                        (Taxes)\n\n^               For Respondent :  Mr.V.Ramachandran   \n\n:                                   JUDGMENT  \n<\/pre>\n
K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
        The revision is filed against the Order of  the  Sales  Tax  Appellate
\nTribunal  made  in  T.A.No.962  of  1992,  whereby  a  turn over of Rs.27,20,4
\n91-35ps, which has been brought to tax under Central Sales  Tax  Act  for  the
\nassessment  year  1970-71  by  the  Assessing  Officer  and  confirmed  by the
\nAppellate Authority has been reversed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The brief facts, which would help us in resolving the  issue,  are
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
        The respondent  is  a dealer in motor vehicles.  For the year 1970-71,
\nthey claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs.77,10,048\/- as sales  made  outside
\nthe  state,  out  of  which  a  turn over of Rs.25,466-71ps related to sale of
\nspares and the balance of Rs.76,84,581-59ps relates to  sale  of  cars.    The
\nplace  of business of the assessee was inspected on 28.8.1970 and 27.4.1971 by
\nthe officials of the Enforcement Wing, Madras and recovered certain documents.
\nThe examination of the accounts and documents  disclosed  that  the  exemption
\nclaimed  by  the  assessee as sale made at Nellore\/Chittoor is not correct and
\nthe sales were actually  made  at  Madras.    Out  of  the  said  turnover  of
\nRs.76,84,581-59   ps,   the   Assessing   Officer   considered   turnover   of
\nRs.49,64,090-24ps as intra-State  turnover  and  in  respect  of  the  balance
\nturnover of Rs.27 ,20,491-35ps, since no material was available, the Assessing
\nOfficer  presumed  that  the  transaction  would  have been made to purchasers
\noutside the State and on that basis,  the  above  said  turnover  of  Rs.27,20
\n,491-35ps has  been brought to tax under the CST.  The said order was taken on
\nappeal.  It was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.  On further appeal,  the
\nAppellate Tribunal reversed the finding.  The correctness of the said order of
\nthe Tribunal is now challenged in the present revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The  learned  Government  Pleader  appearing  for  the petitioner
\nassailed the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that in respect  of
\nthe earlier year in 1969-70, for the very same assessee, this Court upheld the
\norder of the assessment and as such, this revision has to be allowed restoring
\nthe order  of the Assessing Officer.  He further submitted that the assessment
\nhas been made on  the  basis  of  the  materials  recovered  at  the  time  of
\ninspection from  the  place of premises of the dealer.  Such an assessment was
\nupset by the Tribunal.  Hence, the Order of the Tribunal requires interference
\nfrom this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nrespondent\/assessee has submitted that in respect of the TNGST assessment made
\nby  the Assessing Officer over a turnover of Rs.49,64,090-24ps on the basis of
\nthe very same inspection materials has been reversed by the very same order of
\nthe Appellate Tribunal.   That  Order  has  been  taken  on  revision  by  the
\nDepartment to  this  Court.    After  formation  of the Special Tribunal under
\nArticle 323-B of  the  Constitution  of  India,  the  revision  filed  by  the
\nDepartment  in  respect  of  the TNGST turnover was transferred to the Special
\nTribunal and the Special Tribunal taking into consideration of  the  materials
\navailable  has  upheld  the  order of the Appellate Tribunal in respect of the
\nTNGST turnover.  When that being the position, the CST turnover which has been
\nbrought to tax only on presumption has been rightly set aside by the Appellate
\nTribunal and that order requires no interference from this court.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The learned counsel further contended that the entire turnover  of
\nRs.77,10,048-30ps,  which the respondent claimed as sales outside the State of
\nTamil Nadu were brought to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax  Act
\n(hereinafter  referred  to  as the “APPGST Act”) as a sale within the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh and tax due thereon has been paid to the Andhra  Pradesh  State
\nand  that  order of the Tax Authority of Andhra Pradesh has been upheld by the
\nHigh Court and by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.  In these factual  position,  it
\nis proved beyond doubt that the sale in respect of the turnover above said has
\nbeen  done  outside  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and as such the order of the
\nAssessing Officer, which  is  based  only  on  presumption  has  rightly  been
\nreversed by the Appellate Tribunal, the fact finding authority, which requires
\nno interference.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   We  heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and
\nperused the material on record.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  It is the case of the respondent\/assessee that they are authorised
\ndistributors of Ambassador cars for Madras and the Districts  of  Nellore  and
\nChittoor in Andhra Pradesh State under the Motor Cars ( Distribution and Sale)
\nControl Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act and it is the further
\ncase  of  the  respondent  that  they  have  separate  branches in Nellore and
\nChittoor.  Orders were booked at the respective branches and the payments from
\nthe customers are received by the respective branches.  The various  documents
\nmaintained  at  the  branches  would  prove that the cars were delivered after
\nregistration either at Nellore or Chittoor, as the case may be.  Further,  the
\nvarious  vouchers  show  that  the cars were delivered to the customers by the
\nrespective branches and therefore the turnover were sales of cars outside  the
\nState of  Tamil Nadu, not taxable under the State Act or C.S.T.  The said case
\nof the respondent was rejected by the Assessing Authority on the  ground  that
\nthe  dealers received the cars at Madras undertook the work of registration by
\nobtaining necessary documents from the purchaser.  The registration  work  was
\nprior  to  delivery  of  cars  and  the  cars  were delivered at Madras to the
\nconcerned purchaser.  Hence, the movement of cars to Chittoor and Nellore  did
\nnot arise and the sales amount to local sale within the State of Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  In this revision, we are concerned only with the C.S.T assessment.
\nIt  is interesting to note that the CST assessment has been framed against the
\nrespondent by the Assessing Officer in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
        “It can be safely presumed that in as much as proof of delivery of the<\/p>\n
goods at Madras is lacking in respect of a turnover of Rs.27,20,49 1-35,  they
\nshould  have  been  moved to places outside the state as a result of the sale.
\nThe transactions therefore attract liability to tax under the CST Act 1956.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.  This reasoning of the Assessing Officer, which has been  confirmed
\nby  the  Appellate  Authority,  has been reversed by the Tribunal, the highest
\nfact finding authority by recording reasons as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                        “Assessment cannot be made on presumption.  It must be
\nestablished that the goods in respect of this turnover moved to places outside
\nthe State as a result of the sale.  Absolutely there  is  no  proof  regarding
\nthis.   The  finding  of  the Assessing Officer that it can be safely presumed
\nthat inasmuch as proof of delivery of  the  goods  at  Madras  is  lacking  in
\nrespect of the disputed turnover they should have been moved to places outside
\nthe State as a result of the sale cannot hold good.  If there is lack of proof
\nin one  angle,  it  cannot be shifted to the other angle.  The Department must
\nestablish that  this  turnover  attracted  assessment  under  CST.     It   is
\nsignificant  to  note that the goods were sold in Andhra Pradesh and sales tax
\nhas been paid in Andhra Pradesh.  The appellant has also given  objections  to
\nthe notice stating that the appellants were assessed to sales tax by the State
\nof  Andhra  Pradesh  and  all  the  items covered in the pre-assessment notice
\nproposed to be assessed in the State of Tamil Nadu, have been included in  the
\nassessment  made  in  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  the Andhra Pradesh
\nauthorities had taken the view that the transactions are assessable at  Andhra
\nPradesh  State  and  accordingly  they  assessed  the turnover in the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh and as such there was no intention to evade payment of tax  and
\nthe entire  transactions  are  recorded  in  their  books  of  accounts.   The
\nappellants  have  also  stated  that  they  have  opened   separate   branches
\nNellore\/Chittoor  and  orders  were  booked by the respective branches and the
\nbranches were registered under  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Sales  Tax  Act,  having
\nregistration  numbers  and independent character and payments were made by the
\ncustomers in their respective branches and entered in the accounts  maintained
\nthere  and  the  cars  were  delivered  from  Nellore\/Chittoor branches to the
\ncustomers and the turnovers were reported by the  branches  in  the  State  of
\nAndhra Pradesh.    So it is seen from the records that these transactions have
\nbeen assessed as local sales under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Sales  Tax
\nAct   and  proper  accounts  are  also  maintained  by  their  branch  offices
\nNellore\/Chittoor.  So it cannot  be  stated  that  the  turnovers  liable  for
\nassessment under  CST  Act.  There is lack of proof with regard to delivery of
\nthe goods at Madras.  There are no documents to establish that  the  goods  in
\nrespect  of  the  turnovers  moved  to places outside the State as a result of
\nsale.  Absolutely there is no proof that the turnover is liable for assessment
\nunder CST Act.  Hence, we find  that  the  assessment  made  on  the  disputed
\nturnovers  under  the  CST  Act  is not sustainable and it is liable to be set
\naside.”\n<\/p>\n
                                (Italics by us)\n<\/p>\n
                10.  We also find that there  is  absolutely  no  material  to
\nprove that the cars are moved in pursuance of a contract of sale at Nellore or
\nChittoor   so   as   to  bring  the  disputed  transaction  under  inter-State
\ntransaction.  It is  not  the  case  of  the  petitioner  that  the  documents
\nunearthed  during  the  inspection  proved that particular number of cars were
\nbooked at Nellore\/Chittoor in  Andhra  Pradesh  State  and  pursuant  to  that
\nbooking,  the  same  number  of  cars  were  moved  from  Madras office of the
\nrespondent to the Branch Office at Nellore\/Chittoor so as  to  rope  in  those
\ntransactions within the  ambit  of  Section  3(a)  of  the  C.S.T.   Act.  The
\nreasoning given by the authorities is that the assesses claimed exemption over
\na turnover of Rs.77,10,048\/- as sales outside the State and  out  of  which  a
\nturnover  of  Rs.25,466-71ps related to sale of spare parts out of the balance
\nturnover of Rs.76,84,581-59 ps,  a  turnover  in  Rs.49,64,090-24ps  has  been
\nproved to be local sales at Madras and remaining turnover of Rs.27,20,491-35ps
\npresumed to  be  inter-State  transaction.    We  cannot  approve this sort of
\npresumption to the  turnover  under  C.S.T.    No  other  materials  are  made
\navailable  before  us except the orders of the authorities under the Sales Tax
\nAct.  In the absence of any other materials made available to us so as to take
\na different view than the one taken by the Appellate  Tribunal,  we  refrained
\nourselves from interfering with the order under revision.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   It is well settled that the onus lies on the Revenue to disprove
\nthe contention of the dealer that a sale is outside the State and to show that
\nit is an inter-State sale.  This  is  what  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  in
\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES  TAX  VS.   SURESH CHAND JAIN reported in 70 S.T.C.  45.
\nHowever, in the present case, except the above presumption as observed by  the
\nAppellate  Tribunal,  no  material  worth  mentioning  has  been  shown by the
\nAssessing Authority to come to the conclusion that the turnover, which  is  in
\ndispute in the revision, is an inter-State turnover.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The  learned  counsel appearing for the respondent also produced
\nthe assessment order in  respect  of  the  assessment  year  1970-71  dated  3
\n1.12.1973  made  by  the  proceedings  of  the  Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur,
\nwherein the entire turnover of Rs.76,23,482-71ps  has  been  assessed  to  tax
\nunder the  APGST.   This turnover tallies with the turnover of Rs.76,84,581-59
\nwhich was brought to tax under the TNGST and CST put together in  Tamil  Nadu,
\nwith a  negligible  variance.  Hence, it is proved that the entire transaction
\nhas been accounted for and tax has been paid in the Andhra Pradesh state.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In respect of the TNGST  assessment,  the  Special  Tribunal  has
\nupheld  the  order  of  the  Appellate  Tribunal  by  recording reasons to the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
        “We have examined  the  rival  submissions  and  perused  the  records
\nproduced before  us.    We  find  considerable  force in the contention of Mr.
\nV.Ramachandran, counsel for the assessee.  One cannot forget the  fact  during
\nthe  years  1969-70  and 1970-71 only Ambassador Cars were available and there
\nwas always a long queue  of  purchasers.    Naturally  people  wanted  to  get
\npriority by  booking  through  lean  centres  like  Nellore and Chithoor.  The
\nevidence no doubt discloses that  people  in  Madras  and  other  places  gave
\naddresses in  Nellore  or  Chittoor to book cars.  It is not disputed that the
\ncars were taken to Nellore and Chithoor to register them in the  name  of  the
\napplicants.   It  is  not  disputed  that sales tax was paid in Andhra Pradesh
\nState.  To  complete  the  formality  the  assessee  took  on  themselves  the
\nformality of  registration  etc.   and then brought back the cars to Madras to
\nphysically deliver them to the parties.  This is an  arrangement  between  the
\nparties to  get  over  the  Control Order.  But legally, the cars were sold in
\nNellore or Chithoor where the registration took the Motor  Vehicles  Act  took
\nplace.   The  persons  who  booked  the cars from those centres became owners.
\nThereafter it was only an arrangement to bring the cars to Madras and it  will
\nnot have  any  relevance  to  the contract of sale.  It will be appropriate at
\nthis stage to look at the statement of the Manager, Mr.M.K.Hussain.
\nSays the manager,
\n        “Our day book, ledger and other account books, relating to  car  sales
\nare being maintain  at  H.O.    Madras.   The procedure for car booking is the
\nparty has to submit application forms in duplicate  together  a  S.D.book  for
\nRs.2,000\/-  and  this  office  will  forward  the documents to Head Office for
\nnecessary entries in the record books and the duplicate form will be  returned
\nthe party with priority number from here.\n<\/p>\n
        The vehicles will be delivered according to priority numbers from this
\noffice.   The  value  of  the vehicle can be paid by cheques Draft or cash for
\nwhich receipt will be given to the party by  Head  Office  or  Branch.    They
\nmaintain separate accounts for this office at Nellore.”\n<\/p>\n
        Therefore,  much  significance cannot be attached to the scant records
\nand small offices maintained at Nellore and Chittor.   The  elaborate  reasons
\ngiven  by the assessing authority for the 220 cases in 1970-71 and 64 cases in
\n1969-70 fit in with the  above  explanation  of  the  manager  and  the  legal
\ninterpretation given by us to the Control Order and the modus operandi used by
\nboth parties.\n<\/p>\n
        In  fine, we uphold the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that
\nthe subject sales are not exigible to tax under TNGST Act 1959.  The revisions
\nfiled by the Government are dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                        (Italics by us)
\n        This finding of fact arrived at by the  Appellate  Tribunal  has  been
\nconfirmed  by  the  Special  Tribunal  in respect of TNGST Act has statutorily
\nbecome final.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The learned  Government  Pleader  submitted  that  the  Appellate
\nTribunal  though stated in an elaborate fashion, that as seen from the records
\nthat these transactions have been  assessed  to  local  Sales  Tax  at  Andhra
\nPradesh State and proper accounts are also maintained by the branch offices in
\nNellore and Chittoor is not correct and no such materials were produced before
\nthe Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   We  are  afraid,  we  cannot  approve  of  this  argument of the
\nGovernment Pleader on the simple ground that  the  argument  contrary  to  the
\nstatement  in  the  judgment  cannot  be  taken note of unless the contrary is
\nproved, that too at the revisional stage.  Useful reference may be had to  the
\ndecision of  the  Supreme  Court  TAMIL  NADU  ELECTRICITY  BOARD VS.  SUMATHI
\nreported in 2000(4) S.C.C.  534.  The Appellate Tribunal  specifically  stated
\nthat it is seen from the records that these transactions have been assessed to
\nlocal tax under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and
\nproper  accounts  are  also  maintained by their branch offices at Nellore and
\nChittoor.  The argument advanced by the Government Pleader cannot be  accepted
\nat  the revisional stage when the final fact finding authority has come to the
\nconclusion on facts that the accounts were maintained by the Branch Offices at
\nNellore and Chittoor and the transaction was assessed to tax under APGST  Act.
\nAs  stated  already, the learned counsel also produced the assessment made for
\nthe relevant assessment year under the A.P.G.S.T.   Act.    Incidentally,  the
\nSpecial Tribunal has also in respect of the TNGST turnover, after perusing the
\nrecord  produced  before  the  Tribunal,  upheld  the  order  of the Appellate
\nTribunal as extracted supra.  Hence, the finding of fact reached by  the  fact
\nfinding  authorities  cannot  be  interfered  with  at  the  revisional stage,
\nparticularly when there is no materials contra available to disagree with  the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   The  other  contention of the learned Government Pleader that in
\nrespect of the earlier assessment order, this court has upheld the  assessment
\nmade by  the  Assessing  Authority in the case of KHIVRAJ MOTORS (P) LTS.  VS.
\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 106 S.T.C.  400 by itself cannot be  a  reason
\nto allow  this  revision.    In that case, the three authorities including the
\nSales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the highest fact finding authority,  have  found
\nagainst  the  assessee\/dealer  and the revision filed by the assessee has been
\nrejected by this Court.  One of the reasons given by this court is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Regarding the contention that, on the footing that those  sales  were
\ninside  sales  in  Andhra  Pradesh,  they were actually assessed to tax by the
\nAndhra Pradesh authorities and the assessment had even become final since  the
\nmatter  had  been concluded even by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in revision,
\nwe must state that even though the copies of the orders of the Andhra  Pradesh
\nSales  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal  and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh produced
\nbefore us show that the sales involved therein were held to  be  sales  within
\nAndhra  Pradesh  the  said  orders relate not simply to the present assessment
\nyear 1969-70, but relates to four assessment years,  viz.,  1969-70,  1970-71,
\n1971-72  and  1972-73  and, in regard to assessment year 1969-70, the turnover
\ninvolved before the Andhra Pradesh Sales  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal  was  Rs.16
\n,96,044.61.   In  the  above  circumstances,  we  cannot assume that the above
\nreferred to turnover of Rs.16,96,044.61 has any correlation with the  turnover
\nin  question  in  the  present  case  in  relation to the said assessment year
\n1969-70 only, viz., the above said turnover of Rs.4,3 9,686.  For this  reason
\nitself,  we  cannot  place  reliance on the abovesaid orders of Andhra Pradesh
\nTribunal and the Andhra Pradesh High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
        The facts of the present case are not as stated above.  The  exemption
\nclaimed on the turnover of Rs.77,10,048-30ps as outside sale has been roped in
\nby the  Assessing Officer under TNGST and CST.  The turnover thus roped in for
\ntaxation is correlatable to the turnover reported in the books of  account  of
\nthe assessee  and  offered to tax under APGST Act.  This is the precise reason
\ngiven by the Appellate Tribunal, the highest fact finding authority  in  their
\norder  that  “it  is  seen  from  the  records that the transactions have been
\nassessed as local tax under the provisions of APGST and proper  accounts  were
\nalso  maintained by the Branch Office in Chittoor.” Hence, the reliance on the
\njudgment of KHIVRAJ MOTORS (P) LTS.  VS.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in  106
\nS.T.C.  400 cannot be had to this case on the factual situation of the present
\ncase.   This  additional  fact makes an ocean of difference in the conclusions
\nreached in the reported case.  Each assessment year is a unit by itself.    It
\ncannot  be  said that the transaction of dealer for different assessment years
\nwould be identical or same.  The pattern of sale may vary depending  upon  the
\ndemand of  the  goods  in  a  given  year.  Useful reference can be had to the
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS.
\nM\/S.  JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS  AND  ANOTHER  reported  in  2002(1)  JUDGMENT  TODAY
\nS.C.482, in which the Supreme Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Courts  should  not place reliance on decisions without discussing as
\nto how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of  the  decision
\non which  reliance  is  placed.   Observations of Courts are not to be read as
\nEuclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statute.  These  observations  must
\nbe read  in  the context in which they appear.  Judgments of courts are not to
\nbe construed as statutes.  To interpret words, phrases  and  provisions  of  a
\nstatute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions
\nbut the  discussion  is  meant to explain and not to define.  Judges interpret
\nstatutes, they do not interpret judgments.  They interpret words of  statutes,
\ntheir words are not to be interpreted as sta tutes.”\n<\/p>\n
        The Court further held as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying
\nprecedents have become locus classicks:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one
\ncase  and  another  is not enough because even a single significant detail may
\nalter the entire aspect.   In  deciding  such  cases,  one  should  avoid  the
\ntemptation  to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one
\ncase against the colour of another.  To decide, therefore, on  which  side  of
\nthe  line  a  case  falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all
\ndecisive.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                xxx             xxx             xxx
\n        “Precedent should be followed only so far as  it  makes  the  path  of
\njustice,  but  you  must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else
\nyou will find yourself lost in thickets and branches.  My plea is to keep  the
\npath to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        17.   In  view  of  the discussion as stated above, we are declined to
\ninterfere with the finding of fact at the revisional stage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Hence, the revision is dismissed.  However, there is no  order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (V.S.S.,J.) (K.R.P.,J.)
\n                                                        06.03.2002 <\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nWebsite:  Yes
\nusk <\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Chairman,
\nSales Tax Appellate Tribunal
\n(Main Bench)
\nMadras, <\/p>\n
2.  The Deputy Commissioner (C T)
\nMadras (North Division)
\nCT Admn.  Building
\nIII Floor, Madras-6.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Assistant Commissioner (C T)
\nCentral Assessment Circle-III
\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n
06.03.2002 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.03.2002 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN TAX CASE NO.292 of 1994 (Reference No.137 of 1994) The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-22T02:28:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T02:28:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3756,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002\",\"name\":\"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T02:28:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-22T02:28:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T02:28:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002"},"wordCount":3756,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002","name":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T02:28:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-tvl-khivraj-motors-limited-on-6-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tvl.Khivraj Motors Limited on 6 March, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65937","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65937\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}