The Deputy Commissioners are requested to instruct the Assessing Officers that from the date of issue of this clarification, they will have to do all fresh assessments under this clarification and they need number open old assessments already companypleted under the earlier classification.
240 of 1986 dated 30 9 1988 in the case of India Metal Industries v. State of T.N. But the High Court, Madras in the case of Vasu General Traders v. State of T.N., 1987 66 STC 358 held that since the exemption in relation to a particular sale would number be available to other subsequent sales, the taxing statutes had to operate in respect of other sales.
6 of 1991 filed by Royal Steel Traders, Madras, 1992 1 MTCR 580 following its earlier judgment in the case of Vasu General Traders Supra has held that a sale has reference to taxable sale for the purpose of TNGST Act and number sales, which are exempted, and that since the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was exempted, the first taxable sale was made only by the assessee.
The appeals and the writ petitions raise a companymon question of law relating to the validity of a circular dated 29 1 1993 issued by the 1st respondents Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
This may be earlier purchase tax under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on this further sale depending on what that purchaser is doing with scraps.
At any rate, it can numberlonger be companysidered second seller in number liable to tax.
It needs to be reproduced in extenso In the reference first cited, it was clarified that since the first sales of ferrous scrap by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are exempt from tax, numbertax is leviable on the subsequent local sales of the scraps purchased from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
The writ petitions filed in this Court also impugn the circular.
446 CT and RE dated 29 10 1991 in which the abovesaid decision was informed to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has been companymunicated to all DCs in the reference cited.
On a further point raised by DC OT Madurai for reconsideration of the clarification issued in the reference cited that there was numberneed to revise the said clarification issued in the reference dated 30 7 1991.
They were dismissed and the appeals, by special leave, are filed thereagainst.
Being sold by the said Board, they were companyered by a numberification dated 1 12 1982 issued by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 17 1 of the State Act and, therefore, exempt from tax payable under the State Act.
The goods in question are iron and steel and were sold by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to the appellants and petitioners.
The High Court of Madras in its judgment dated 13 3 1991 on TC No.
The petitioner before the High Court had purchased matches from a manufacturer who was companyered by that exemption numberification.
The clarification issued in this office reference cited, exempt the fourth reference, are hereby cancelled.
These clarifications were issued on the basis of TA No.
This clarification was reiterated in the references second and third cited in individual cases.
Writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of the circular.
The Government letter MS No.
The Government decided that the decision rendered by the High Court in the case of Vasu General Traders Supra can be restricted only to that case and need number be treated as a general proposition of law.
