M/S. TECHNOGLOBE versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 16-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 73 
MIS. TECHNOGLOBE 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1809 of 2003) 
NOVEMBER 16, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,. 1959 - ss. 3 and 17 A 
A 
B 
- Deferment of sales tax by Government Notification for a C 
period of five years - On purchase for a particular project -
Revenue denying the tax concession for two assessment 
years - Taxation Tribunal as well as the High Court upholding 
the order of Revenue - On appeal, held: The tax incentives 
were given by the Government Notification -
State D 
Government was competent to issue the Notification - Since 
the authorities below did not examine the scope and 
implication of the Notification, matter remanded to the 
Tribunal to examine all the aspects of levy of tax - G.O.M. 
No. 169 Information and Tourism Department, dated 27th 
E 
June, 1994. 
Practice and Procedure - New plea, based on evidence 
- Raising of, for the first time before Supreme Court - Held: 
Ordinarily, such plea is not entertainable - However, if the plea 
is based on a public document, the same can be taken into 
consideration. 
F 
Respondent No. 2-Corporation, a nodal agency for 
administering and implementing a 'Film City Project', 
awarded the contract to the appellant. The Corporation 
G 
issued various purchase orders to the appellant, 
accompanied by Certificates of Sale, certifying that the 
sales tax for the equipments purchased for the Film City 
Project was exempted by the State Government. 
73 
H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
The Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) denied the 
B 
exemption to the appellant and subjected the entire sales 
turnover to sales tax under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax 
Act, 1959 creating an additional tax demand and also 
imposed penalty. 
The appellant approached the Taxation Special 
Tribunal seeking direction to the Corporation to pay the 
arrears of sales tax, surcharge and penalty levied on the 
appellant. The Tribunal rejected the petition. The writ 
C petition filed against the order of the Tribunal was 
dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the instant 
appeal was filed. 
D 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the 
Tribunal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Under certain circumstances, the State 
Government has the power to issue Notification for 
deferment of payment of the whole or any part of the tax 
payable in respect of any period. The State Government 
E in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s. 17-A of the Tamil Nadu 
General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was competent to issue 
G.O.M. No. 169 Information and Tourism Department 
dated 27th June, 1994. The Notification defers payment 
of sales tax by the proposed 'Film City Project' for a 
period of five years. The State Government had acceded 
F to the request of the 'Film City' for granting it various 
concessions, incentives etc. with the concurrence of 
different departments, which included the Department of 
Commercial Taxes as well. [Paras 15 and 16] (82-B; 81-
C] 
G 
H 
2. All the authorities below, particularly the Tribunal, 
have proceeded on the premise that no Notification u/s. 
17 of the Act, which clothes the State Government with 
the power to notify exemptions and reductions of tax in 
TECHNOGLOBE v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
75 
respect of any tax payable under the Act, had been 
A 
issued. The Notification dated 27th June, 1994, 
contemplates deferment of sales tax for a period of 5 
years wherever sales tax levy is applicable on the 
purchases for the film city project. Prima facie, there is 
force in the stand of the appellant that the Notification 
B 
would cover the sales made by them to the Corporation 
in the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 which fall in the 
stipulated period of five years. [Para 19] [83-D; 84-B] 
3. Ordinarily the Supreme Court would be loathe to C 
·examine contentions of facts based on evidence, 
advanced for the first time before the Supreme Court 
without there being any adjudication by the High Court 
on the same. However, in the instant case, the 
Notification dated 27th June, 1994 being a public 
document, produced by one of the contesting 
D 
respondents, it would be travesty of justice if the said 
document is not taken into consideration for determining 
the issue, which admittedly surrounded the same 
Notification. [Para 19] [84-C-D] 
Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Anr. vs. Devi Sahai and 
Ors. (1982) 1 sec 237 - relied on. 
4. Since none of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.