T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. N. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
(2.)With the consent of either side, the tax cases are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
(3.)These tax cases have been filed by the petitioner assessee raising the following common questions of law.
"i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Authority, committed an error of law in entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and wrongly applying the Third Proviso to Section 58(1) which would apply only when the remand made by the first appellate authority was for fresh assessment and when the remand was coupled with directions and adverse findings?

ii. Whether the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law in failing to note that the embargo contained in the Third Proviso to Section 58(1) of TNVAT Act, 2006, was intended to reduce multiplicity of proceedings and therefore by its very nature could apply when the remand made by the first appellate authority contained adverse directions and findings?

iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have seen that on merits, the levy of tax of Rs. 2,60,708/- (TC 1/18), Rs. 2,89,230/- (TC 2/18), Rs. 3,84,763/- (TC 3/18), Rs. 8,27,488/- (TC 4/18), Rs. 7,75,255/- (TC 5/18), Rs. 7,62,157/-(TC 6/18) and Rs. 5,48,838/- (TC 7/18) on the supply of fresh stock of medicines and formulations made by the petitioners to their stockists after taking back the life expired stock was illegal since it was only a case of an exchange or replacement and did involve sale of goods by the petitioners?

iv. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have seen that the conclusion of a sale made in the appellate order dated 16.08.2016 was erroneous and suffered from clear error of law contrary to the materials placed in the course of hearing of the first appeal on 09.08.2016?

v. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that there was no case for levy of penalty imposed as figures taken for the revision of assessment were from the books of accounts of the petitioners?"