Judgment : 1. In these batch of cases, the petitioners are two in number, namely, M/s.Sun Cellular Communications, Karur and M/s.Star Marketing, Karur. 2. The writ petitions have been filed with two prayers. One of the prayer is to quash the order passed by the Authority for Clarifications and Advance Ruling dated 14.02.2013, whereby the Authority at the instance of the petitioner clarified that cell phones recharge coupons is taxable at 5% as intangible goods under Entry 70 of Part B of the First Schedule to Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006. 3. In the other set of cases, the petitioners have challenged the orders of the assessment, wherein the assessing authority by following the clarifications issued on 14.02.2013 proposed to assess the petitioners and levy tax and penalty. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of this Court in a batch of cases in W.P.Nos.18055 of 2003 etc., batch dated 23.06.2006. In the said batch of cases, the issue which fell for consideration was whether the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer of the concerned area and the other officers of the State Government exercising power under the provisions of the TNGST Act, are entitled to realise sales tax on services provided by Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Providers, operating under the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India. This Court took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 145 STC 91. After following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the writ petitions, which were filed seeking for a writ of declaration stating that the State of Tamil Nadu is incompetent to legislate for and impose sales tax on the said goods and for a writ of prohibition to proceed further with the pre revision notice were disposed of by setting aside the assessment order and remitting the matter back to the respective assessing officers for reframing the assessment in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The operative portion of the order and direction issued by this Court is as follows: “3. Following the said judgment, these writ petitions are also disposed of as decided by the Supreme Court in the following manner. The operative portion of the order and direction issued by this Court is as follows: “3. Following the said judgment, these writ petitions are also disposed of as decided by the Supreme Court in the following manner. In the writ petitions, which are filed against the assessment orders and are not passed in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (145 STC PAGE 91), the assessment orders are set aside and remitted back to the respective assessing officers for reframing the assessment in accordance with the Supreme Court decision. In respect of the writ petitions, which are filed pending appeals before, the respective appellate authorities, the appellate authorities are directed to dispose of the appeals in accordance with the above said decision of the Supreme Court. The writ petitions, which are filed against the notice issued for assessment are disposed of with a direction to the respective petitioner to file their objections as per law.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, nothing further happened and the matter is still pending with the authorities. The learned counsel would further submit that the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25070 of 2008 dated 20.10.2008, in the case of Sri Mahalakshmi Distributor, Villupuram vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others allowed a writ petition, wherein a prayer was made to declare the demand made by the respondents to pay sales tax in respect of recharge coupons in the course of providing mobile telephone services as being unconstitutional and illegal. The writ petition was allowed on the basis of the submission made by the petitioner as well as the respondent department stating that the issue involved is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL (supra). The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent fairly submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar nigam Limited vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2006 SC 1383 . In the said case, the Apex Court has dealt with the term 'goods' in relation to the issuance of rechargeable coupons and the SIM cards. 4. In the said case, the Apex Court has dealt with the term 'goods' in relation to the issuance of rechargeable coupons and the SIM cards. 4. In paragraph -63, the Apex Court has held as follows: “63. It is clear, electromagnetic waves are neither abstracted nor are they consumed in the sense that they are not extinguished by their user. They are not delivered, stored or possessed. Nor are they marketeable. They are merely the medium of communication. What is transmitted is not an electromagnetic wave but the signal through such means. The signals are generated by the subscribers themselves. In telecommunication what is transmitted is the message by means of the telegraph. No part of the telegraph itself is transferable or deliverable to the subscribers.” 5. However, in respect of SIM cards, the Apex Court has held that this issue is to be decided to the determination of the assessing authorities. 6. In view of the admitted position that the issue relating to the rechargeable coupons, the Apex Court has held that the same is not coming within the definition of 'goods', the writ petition, which is filed for declaration that the demand made by the respondents on the petitioner to pay Sales Tax in respect of Rechargeable coupons, is sustainable. 7. In view of the same, the writ petition stands allowed insofar as it relates to rechargeable coupons, based on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 1383 . No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed.” 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the above referred order has become final, against which no writ appeal has been preferred. With the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order of assessment itself is illegal and the advance ruling authority ought to have taken into consideration, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL (supra). However, there is a fault on the part of the assessee/dealer, since the same was not placed for consideration before the Advance Ruling Authority. 7. In the background of the above facts, the petitioners have filed a petition to review the order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority dated 14.02.2013 by filing the review petition dated 04.07.2014, raising the following grounds: (i). 7. In the background of the above facts, the petitioners have filed a petition to review the order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority dated 14.02.2013 by filing the review petition dated 04.07.2014, raising the following grounds: (i). That the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in Volume 145 STC 91 (BSNL Ltd v. Union of India), has held that, the act of providing telecommunication facility is nothing but a service and there is no element of goods save the hand set. M/s.Vodafone Cellular Limited, are parties to this judgment. (ii). That a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in its judgment in 2012 (49) VST 98 (AP) – State of A.P. v. BSNK Ltd., has held that recharge voucher represents only contract of service. (iii). That the recharge voucher represents contract of service. Presently, technology has evolved to provide recharge by way of electronic signals. (iv). That, in the alternative, recharge vouchers may only be considered to be actionable claim which is excluded from the definition of goods under the TNVAT Act. 8. It is submitted that the review petitions are still pending before the authority and in the meantime, the assessing authority has followed the clarification issued by the Advance Ruling Authority dated 14.02.2013 and assessed the petitioners to tax and also levy penalty. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that as long as the finding given by the Advance Ruling Authority has not been reversed or set aside, the same would bind the petitioners at whose instance the said clarification was obtained. Further the learned counsel would submit that the clarification given by the Authority is perfectly valid and the cell phone recharge coupons is taxable at 5% as intangible goods as entry to TNVAT Act. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 11. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the assessing authority being a quasi judicial authority, despite the clarification issued by the Tax Levying authority, ought to have independently considered the objections raised by the petitioners and assessed the goods, instead of mechanically following the Advance Ruling Authorities' clarification. 11. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the assessing authority being a quasi judicial authority, despite the clarification issued by the Tax Levying authority, ought to have independently considered the objections raised by the petitioners and assessed the goods, instead of mechanically following the Advance Ruling Authorities' clarification. This contentions could have been advanced in a case where the dealer/assessee being a third party to the proceedings, but, however, in the instant case, these petitioners had approached the Advance Ruling Authority sought for specific clarifications stating that the nature of business is purchase and sale of tangible recharge coupons and they wanted to know the rate of tax on cell phone recharge coupons. This issue was examined under Section 14 of the Act and the authority provided the clarification. Therefore, it may be a case where some other person has approached the assessing authority and if the assessing authority places reliance on clarifications issued by the Advance Ruling Authority at the instance of some other third party, then the submission that the power exercisable by the assessing authority should have been exercised in a quasi judicial manner and not merely following the clarification of the Advance Ruling Authority, such contention could have been advanced. 12. In the instant case, the petitioners themselves went to the Authority and they cannot now turn back and say that the clarification is not binding on them as long as the clarification or reviewed by the Authority, the same would bind the petitioners. 13. In such circumstances, the petitioners have not made out a case for quashing the impugned orders of assessment. However, since a review has already been filed, which being a statutory review under Section 48A(4) of the Act, the petitioners should be granted liberty to pursue the review petition before the second respondent. In the review petitions, the petitioners have raised the contentions by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL and would state that their principal, namely, M/s.Vodafone Cellular Limited, who were party to the said decision. Further, the petitioners have placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, Supreme Court in the case of BSNL 145 STC 91, wherein it has been held that recharge vouchers are the only contract of service. Further, the petitioners have placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, Supreme Court in the case of BSNL 145 STC 91, wherein it has been held that recharge vouchers are the only contract of service. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that in the said review petitions the recharge vouchers represents contract of service of the technology has evolved to provide recharge by way of electronic signals. 14. An alternative submission has also been made stating that recharge vouchers may only be considered to be actionable claim, which has been excluded from the definition of goods under the TNVAT Act. Since the statutory review is pending before the authority, this Court is of the view that the Authority should consider the review petition, which has been filed on 04.07.2014. 15. For all the above reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of by issuing the following directions: (i) The second respondent, namely, the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling shall consider and dispose of the petitioners' review applications filed under Section 48A(4) of the Act dated 04.07.2014 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Until the review petitions are heard and disposed of by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling , the impugned orders of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.