IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.04.2009 CORAM :- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Tax Case (Revision) No.1739 of 2006 Sri Paramakalyani Agencies & Automobiles Works Rajapalayam. ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Commercial Tax Officer-II Rajapalayam 2. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Virudhunagar 3. Sales Tax appellate Tribunal (Addl.Bench) Madurai. ..Respondents TAX CASE (Revision) filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Madurai dated 9.7.2001 and made in M.T.S.A.No.78 of 1998. The revision is filed before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai originally and on the abolition of Special Tribunal, it has been re-numbered and taken on file of this Court against the order dated 24.03.1998 in Appeal No.60/98 on the file of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) Virudhunagar, against the order dated 19.01.1998 by the Commercial Tax Officer-2, Rajapalayam, in Ka.Na.Po.Vi.Va.Sa./911691/93-94. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Spl.G.P.(Taxes) ORDER ORDER OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J The assessee is on revision before this Court against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Madurai dated 9.7.2001 and made in M.T.S.A.No.78 of 1998 on the following questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (1) Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the exemption claimed by the petitioner for the agricultural implements such as disc ploughs, ridgers and terracers which are found place in the list III appended to the exemption notification dated 13.4.1983, whether the turnover of Rs.8,93,980/- dealt by the dealer is validly exempted as per the Serial Nos.2, 8 and 12 of the list 3 of the notification dated 18.3.1970 and subsequently amended by G.O.P.710 dated 3.6.1984 (2) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the prices of implements are excluded from the exemption? (3) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the exemption of the agricultural impalements under list 3 of the notification used for operation by human or animal agencies alone are eligible for exemption? 2. The material facts, which are relevant for disposal of the revision are as follows: The petitioner is a dealer in tractor and automobiles and its parts and also in agricultural implements at Rajapalayam during the relevant assessment year 1993-94. According to the assessee, their sale of agricultural implements was exempted from tax as per notification in G.O.P.No.423 dated 13.4.1983. The said contention has been accepted by the assessing officer and assessment appears to have been framed as such. Subsequently the assessment was revised and the turnover for which exemption has been granted was brought for assessment by stating that those agricultural implements are not liable to be exempted under the notification. On that ground the assessing officer assessed the turnover at 3 percent together with the penalty of Rs.46,263/-. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the goods involved and valued by the assessee were only agricultural implements and specified in the exemption notification dated 13.4.1983 in list III and allowed the appeal. The State carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the State appeal on the ground that the notification with which reliance has been made by the assessee is not applicable to the goods sold by the assessee, in the sense, that the agricultural implements stated in List III of the Notification, though corresponds to the implements sold by the petitioner, but a rider is attached to the notification i.e., those implements stated therein are to be operated by human or animal agencies is staring the assessee. 3. What the assessee sold are not agricultural implements used for operation of which are not by human or animal agencies, which is the mandatory requirement for the application of the notification, which factum has been considered by the Tribunal to non-suit the assessee for the benefit under the Government Order in G.O.P.No.710 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 3.6.1984 and the notification dated 18.3.1970 also prescribed that the implements must be agricultural implements operated manually or by animal agencies. The agricultural implements sold by the assessee are neither operated by human agency nor animal agencies is the admitted fact. On that score, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal to non-suit the petitioner for the benefit of G.O and the revision is dismissed. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar usk To 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II, RAJAPALAYAM. 2. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VIRUDHUNAGAR. 3. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ADDITIONAL BENCH), MADURAI. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI. + 1 c.c. to Mr. M.Md.Ibrahim Ali, Advocate. S.R.No.13498. + 1 c.c. to The Special Government Pleader (Taxes). S.R.No.13367. Tax Case (Revision) No.1739 of 2006 KA (CO) GSK 20.04.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/