Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1145 (MAD)

MEENU EQUIPMENTS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU.

2009-04-15

K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, M.M.SUNDRESH

body2009
JUDGMENT K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J. - The Revenue is on revision before us canvassing the correctness of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore dated August 11, 1994 made in CTA No. 356 of 1992. Heard the learned counsel on either side on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the revision of assessment, whereunder the exemption originally granted was revoked, in respect of sales of mixies ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's order negativing the claim for exemption is violative of the principles of natural justice and is arbitrary ? The assessee's claim for exemption in respect of sale of meenu mix made by it to the union run canteen, heavy vehicles factory, Ministry of Defence, Government of India under G.O.P. No. 3125 dated December 30, 1964, was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the women's welfare association for whose benefit the mixers were purchased is a separate organisation catering to the welfare of the residents of the heavy vehicles factory, which is fortified by the letter of the chairman of the unit run canteen. When the ultimate beneficiaries are the members of the association, the claim of exemption under G.O.P. No. 3125 dated December 30, 1964 cannot be legally sustained. We have also gone through the G.O.P. No. 3125, Revenue dated December 30, 1964, which was gazetted on January 20, 1965 by which exemption was granted to sale of goods by any dealer in the State to the canteen stores department. The highest fact-finding authority has recorded a finding, which runs as follows : "Perusal of the records shows that even though the order and payment accounts were effected by the said manager, the sale invoice made by the appellants was in the name of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Women's Welfare Association Unit run Canteen (Heavy Vehicle Factory), Avadi, Madras 8. These facts clearly indicate the goods were intended for unit run by women's welfare association and they were the actual buyers." From the above extracted portion, it is clear that the orders were placed by the unit run canteen to the assessee, goods were received by the unit run canteen and the invoices were raised by the assessee in the name of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Women's Welfare Association Unit run canteen (Heavy Vehicles Factory), Avadi, Madras and settled by the said unit run canteen. The above factors clearly prove that the sales were made by the assessee in favour of the canteen stores. The reasoning of the Tribunal, that as the canteen stores have purchased mixers for the benefit of women welfare association which is catering to the needs of the welfare of the heavy vehicle factory and the residents of the heavy vehicle factory are the ultimate beneficiaries are all immaterial to decide the issue whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit. If the terms of the Government order is complied with by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of G.O.P. No. 3125 dated December 30, 1964. Hence, we are of the view that the reasoning of the Tribunal is against the very purpose for which the G.O., was issued and the order of the Tribunal is set aside by holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the G.O. The appeal is allowed. No costs.