Y.N. Enterprises vs Commercial Tax Officer

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

It is stated that the petitioner-firm is a dealer in handwoven woollen druggets which are sold to various dealers in other States. The druggets are of inferior quality and they are used in cold regions like Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir as absorbents of moisture on the floors of the building during the winter season. Inferior quality of raw wool fibre is the basic raw material for the manufacture of druggets. The raw material consisting of woollen fibres is first mixed thoroughly and thereafter, carded, which process results in the laying of fibres in a combed condition. The combed fibres are then twisted and threaded into woollen ropes. However, the fibres cannot be regarded as woollen yarn as it has very little tensile strength and they cannot withstand the strain of weaving. Thereafter, the woollen ropes are knotted on the warp cotton threads through handlooms. The final product is called handloom woollen druggets. The selling price is only Rs. 4 per sq. ft. All the druggets manufactured are sent to dealers outside the State and the inter-State sales was exempted for many years for the reason that handwoven druggets are used by poor peasants as mattresses in cold areas to absorb moisture on floors. Being an exempted item, the respondent did not issue any orders of assessment and it was contemplated that the exemption was allowed, classifying the handwoven druggets, as an exempted commodity as per the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (entry 2 of Part B of the Third Schedule).

While so, the petitioner-firm had received a pre-assessment notice for the year 1996-97, treating the commodity as one under the head "carpets" and imposed tax liability at 20 per cent on the inter-State sales of hand-woven druggets. The detailed objections submitted on behalf of the petitioner-firm were considered by the respondent and the proposal was confirmed stating that the druggets are classified as "carpets", under entry 8 of Part G of the First Schedule and hence they are liable for tax at 20 per cent. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vellore, in A.P. 574 of 1998 in CST. No. 365604/96-97. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, considering the merits of the case, based on the certificate issued by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of assessment passed by the respondent. However, the respondent had issued a notice for the assessment year 1997-98, in CST. No. 365604/97-98, dated March 15, 2000, for which detailed objections were filed by the petitioner, on March 26, 2000, enclosing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vellore. In spite of the same, the respondent had failed to consider the earlier order and had arbitrarily passed an order of assessment, dated March 31, 2000, without considering the objections filed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the reliefs as stated therein.

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court an order dated August 18, 2007 Sri Ranga Textiles P. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, made in W.P. No. 27560 of 2007 wherein, this Court had set aside the impugned order and had remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent therein was further directed to pass orders in the light of Notification No. 197(a) of 1970, dated July 27, 1970, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary), Part III, dated July 28, 1970. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that it would suffice if this Court passes a similar order in the present writ petition.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for this Court passing such an order.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the impugned order of the respondent in CST. No. 365604/1997-98, dated March 31, 2000, is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to be considered afresh and for passing appropriate orders after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to make necessary objections, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such objections being made, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.