2009 (8) TMI 1074 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the goods moved from other State at the instance of the assessee were earmarked for a specific works contract undertaken by the dealers and hence, deduction was allowable under Section 3-B(2)(a) of the TNGST Act? Held that - When the Tribunal has rendered a factual finding based on which it had reached the conclusion that the assessee was entitled for the deduction as provided under Section 3-B(2)(a) of the Act, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the said factual finding, in the absence of any serious illegality committed by the Tribunal in analysing the material evidence placed before it by the assessee; may be for the first time; while dealing with the appeal before the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this revision. The tax case revision fails and the same is dismissed.

Summary

The High Court of Madras, in the citation 2009 (8) TMI 1074, delivered a judgment regarding a revision raised by the State. The substantial question of law was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing a deduction under Section 3-B(2)(a) of the TNGST Act for goods moved from another state for a specific works contract. The Special Government Pleader argued that the assessee failed to provide documents proving the purpose of the inter-state sale. The Appellate Tribunal, under Section 36 of the Act, has extensive powers to review and make decisions on assessment orders. The Tribunal concluded that the goods moved by the assessee were earmarked for the works contract with M/s. Madras Refineries Ltd. and were eligible for the deduction. The Tribunal thoroughly analyzed documents provided by the assessee and found that the goods were indeed supplied for the works contract. The Tribunal dismissed the assessing authority's stand that the goods were local and concluded that the goods were genuinely inter-state. As the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings, the High Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the tax case revision.