9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Ors. [2001 (9) TMI 1114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - The Assessing Officer to redo the deduction particularly with reference to Labour Charges alone adopting 30% as relatable to labour charges liable to be deducted in the books of accounts - Apart from this, the question of penalty levied on the assessee also needs to be reassessed - the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) of the TNGST Act, the Tribunal reduced the levy of penalty at 50% as against the 150% - Decided partly in favour of Petitioner. - Tax Case (Revision) No.171 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And T. S. Sivagnanam,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sundareswaran for Mr. K. Venkatasubramanian For the Respondent : Mr. Manokar Sundaram A. G. P (Taxes) ORDER (The Judgment of the Court was made by T. S. Sivagnanam, J.) This Tax Case Revision by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madras in T.A.No.870 of 2001, dated 24.02.2003, for the assessment year 1986-87. 2. This Tax Case (Revision) has been admitted on the following substantial question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST Act. The first Appellate Authority, by order dated 04.07.2000, dismissed the appeal agreeing with the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and observed that separate accounts maintained by the assessee is of no avail, since the raw materials had not been used in the laying and polishing of materials as such, but out of those raw materials, the assessee had manufactured mosaic tiles, which had not suffered tax earlier in the State and transferred to the customers. By relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in W.A.Nos.982, 1043 to 1047 of 1994, dated 24.02.1995, filed by the Tamil Nadu Mosaic Tiles Manufacturers Association, the first Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and held that the Assessing Officer was fully justified in levying tax on 70% of the receipts by granting exemption on 30% as per Section 3B(2)(e) of the TNGST Act. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 4. Before the Tribunal, the assessee reiterating the same contentions by stating that the contract is a works contract and therefore, they are eligible for exemption. Apart from that the assessee contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing tiles of different colours and specifications. Therefore, the Assessing Authority after scrutinizing these documents found that the assessee manufactured mosaic tiles and the said property was passed on by the assessee to his customers and the said property had not suffered tax. In view of the factual position and on perusal of the documents placed before this Court, we are of the firm view that the assessee has not used in the execution of any works contract, the goods which were purchased by him in the same form. Therefore, the question of granting exemption under Section 3B(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, does not arise. The finding of fact recorded by all the three authorities, is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited and Anr., vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., reported in 65 VST 1. The learned counsel brought to our attention the decision in paragraph 60, to explain the expression in some other form . The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not in any manner advance the case of the assessee, since the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t position will not change merely because the person who buys the iron or steel, after making the rolling shutter, chooses to transfer the property in the form of shutter to a person who may want to use it in the home or as an attachment to the building. The goods and the property in which it is transferred in such a case remains the property in shutter and not in the iron which had been bought for the purpose of manufacture of shutter. The tax that may have been paid on the purchase of iron or steel to manufacture shutter cannot be regarded as tax that would be payable on the shutter as well. 12. The very illustration the counsel gave about making a painting itself demonstrates effectively in the intent of the Parliament in effecting the amendment. The object of the amendment was to bring into the tax net the items, which otherwise could not have been brought to tax, and it is not meant to be a sieve through which goods liable to be taxed are allowed to escape tax. 13. The change in the form referred to in Article 366(29-A) of the Constitution is not change in the form of the goods to other commercially distinct and taxable goods. The change of form referred to therein, is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
