Case Law Details
Orchid Designs Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court)
The petitioner states that a writ appeal has been filed as against order dated 07.08.2020 as against which the present review petition has been filed. In fact, the index to the typed-set only sets the grounds of appeal and no ground for review is made out.
2. In the course of oral hearing, learned counsel would reiterate the stand already noted and dealt with under order dated 08.2020 on the applicability of majority judgment in the case of Kone Elevator Pvt Ltd vs State of Tamil Nadu 71 VST 1. After having considered all the points, I had at paragraph 13 relegated the petitioner to the appellate authority since the question of whether the transactions in issue constitute works contracts or sales would involve an examination of the contracts as well as various other factual particulars and such an exercise cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction.
3. That apart, though no ground has been raised, C. Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Filterco and another v Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP and other 61 STC 318. The argument of the petitioner is that there is a Circular of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 06.08.2007 which is in favour of the petitioner and in light of the said circular, the matter ought not to have relegated to appeal.
4. Reliance on the aforesaid judgment is misconceived for the reason that, in that judgment, the proposition laid down was that a Circular issued by a superior authority would bind an assessing officer and in such circumstances, there is no point in remanding the matter to the file of the assessing authority to be redone.
5. In the present case, the petitioner has been relegated to appeal which means that the matter will be heard by the appellate authority. That apart, and pertinently, as circular dated 06.08.2007, according to learned counsel, favours the petitioner, I see no difficulty on this score and the ratio of the judgment in FilterCo (supra) is inapplicable to the present case.
6. This review petition is dismissed. No costs.
