Case Law Details
Schneider Electric India Pvt.Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Rule 8 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 prescribes a method of determination of ‘taxable turnover‘ for the purpose of payment of tax. It is not to be read to mean that CST ‘turnover’ is to be included either for determination of tax liability under the TNVAT Act, 2006 or for filing of Returns under Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 on 12/14 of the succeeding month as the case may be.
Thus, “taxable turnover” under Section 2(38) under TNVAT Act, 2006 can include only the “turnover” on which a dealer was liable to pay tax under TNVAT Act, 2006as determined after making such deductions from “total turnover” and in such manner as may be prescribed for determining “total turnover”. The amounts to be deducted Rule 8(2) of TNVAT Rules, 2007 can never form part of the “taxable turnover” under Section 2 (38) of the TNVAT Act 2006 for the purpose of Section 21 of the TNVAT Act 2006.
The overlap between the CST Act, 1956 and the TNVAT Act, 2006 and the Rules made thereunder are only for the purpose of following the procedure prescribed under the latter Act for the former. Barring the above, there is no scope for including one turnover into another either for determining the tax liability or the determining the due date for filing the Returns, Section 9 of the CST and Rule made thereunder do not permit any inclusion of the turnover under one tax enactment into another.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.