9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT OF INDIA] the writ petition will stand allowed. The impugned order dated July 13, 2007, will stand set aside. - W.P. No. 26831 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2008 - CHANDRU K. , J. ORDER:- K. CHANDRU J. Heard the arguments of Mr. A.R. Jayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Ganesan, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent and perused the records. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the notice dated July 13, 2007 for the revised assessment issued under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, the TNGST Act ). It was contended by Mr. A.R. Jayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that for the assessment year 2004-05, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner stated that pursuant to the notice, the petitioners have produced the order of works contract and also submitted the necessary form A and he also drew the attention of this court to the provisions contained under section 7C(4) of the TNGST Act, which reads as follows: Section 7C(4). A dealer, exercising option under sub-section (1) shall, so long as the option remains in force, not be required to maintain accounts of his business under this Act or the Rules made thereunder except the records in originals of the (works contract), extent of their execution and payments received or receivable in relation to such (works contract), executed or under execution. The learned counsel also relied upon the provisions contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, the whole or any part of the turnover can be said to have been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which the same was assessable so as to attract the provisions of section 16(1)(b). That not being the case, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous in law and consequently the tax revision case is dismissed. The said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Devendran Company [1996] 103 STC 95. The learned counsel also produced the work order issued by Indian Oil Corporation in favour of the petitioner, which was also submitted to the respondent. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the respondent had power under section 16 of the TNGST Act to reo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
