9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first respondent representing the sale of letter heads, ledgers, bill books, etc. According to the assessing officer, the sale of the said articles from April 1, 1980 to July 2, 1980 should be taxed at the multi-point rate at 4 per cent, and the sale from July 3, 1980 to March 31, 1981 should be taxed at 8 per cent, applying entry 144 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to "the Act". The contention raised on behalf of the assessee was that the entire transaction was not liable to be taxed, as the transaction arose from the works contract, and there was no sale at all. The plea of the assessee that it was a works contract was rejected by the assessing officer, and consequently, the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he levy of tax under the provisions of the Act. However, as regards the rate of tax, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the turnover was liable to be taxed only at the multi-point rate on the sale of articles, and the entry 144 of the First Schedule was not applicable to the sale of the articles in question. Thus, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated May 25, 1984 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and directed that on the disputed turnover, the tax should be levied at the rate of 4 per cent. As against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated May 25, 1984, the Revenue preferred a tax case (revision) petition before this Court under section 38(1) of the Act, as at that time the revision w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, holding that the transaction in question was not a works contract, but a supply contract, and it would attract the levy of sales tax under the Act. The assessee has not challenged that part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal in a manner known to law or in a manner permitted by law. Hence, that part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal rendered in the year 1984 against the assessee has become final. Hence, it is not open to the assessee to urge and raise the same point before the Special Tribunal in the revision preferred by the Revenue challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the rate of tax. As we have already seen, the assessee has not preferred any revision against that part of the order of the Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
