IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.2.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1986 of 2006 SRIKSHETHRA DISTRIBUTORS [ PETITIONER ] REPD. BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.D.PRATHAP REDDY NO.144 MUDICHUR ROAD WEST TAMBARAM CHENNAI-45. Vs 1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TAMBARAM I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE CHROMPET CHENNAI-44. 2 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REPD. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI-9. 3 UNION OF INDIA REPD. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENTS) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the second respondent, the State of Tamilnadu and its officers and agents are incompetent either to legislate for or impose and realise a sales tax under any power conferred under Serial No.54, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, on the tariff realised by Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Providers, and that services sold under Tariff as distributors for providing such services whether called air time charges, pre-paid or post paid coupons, SIM card charges, activation or processing fee embedded in the starter pack or pre-paid packages and that the resultant demands and notices requiring payment of such taxes under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 are ultra vires Article 265, 269(3), 286 and 366(29-A) and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. For petitioner : Mr.A.R.Jayaprathap For respondents : Mr.J.Ganesan Government Advocate (T) for R1 and R2 Mr.J.Ravindran A.S.G. For R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the issues arising for consideration in the present writ petition are covered by the order passed by the Supreme Court, in BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED &. ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2006) (145 STC 91) and in the order passed by this Court, dated 1.8.2006, in W.P.No.6130 of 2004. 2. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents have not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition stands disposed of, directing the first respondent to reframe the assessment in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to place on record their submissions before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer concerned shall dispose of the pending proceedings, in accordance with law, considering the submissions made by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.2263 of 2006 is closed. lan Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To: 1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TAMBARAM I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE CHROMPET CHENNAI-44. 2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT THE STATE OF TAMILNADU DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI-9. 3 THE SECRETARY UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI. + 1 cc to Mr. Inbarajan, Advocate SR No.13505 + 1 cc to Spl Government Pleader (T), SR No.2804 MS(CO) SR/8.3.2010 Writ Petition No.1986 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/