Heard Ms.Hema Muralikrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the assessee's own case in Madras Refineries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner reported in (2010) 28 VST 417 (Mad), wherein it was held that the transaction in the name and style of procedure for loan transaction of crude oil between the oil companies pursuant to the procedure adopted by the oil co-ordination committee as a simple barter or loan transaction without the element of sale.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against the said decision, no appeal was preferred by the Revenue.
Hence, following the said decision, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.12.2002 is quashed. No costs.
31.07.2017 Index: yes/no Internet:yes gpa To
1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Fast Track Assessment Circle IV Greams Road, Chennai 600 006
2.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department Fort St. George Chennai -9
3.The Petroleum, Planning & Analysis Cell (Formerly known as Oil Co-ordination Committee) Core & Scope Comple Lodhi Road, New Delhi
4.M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East Mumbai 400 051
5.M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400 020
6.M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimboy Road Ballard Estate, Bombay 400 038
7.M/s.Kochi Refineries Ltd., PB No.2, Ambalamugal Ernakulam District Kerala-682 302
8.The Union of India Rep. by its Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J., gpa W.P.No.2406 of 2006 31.07.2017