9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan [1989 (1) TMI 359 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] – writ petition allowed - impugned order quashed – decided in favor of appellant. - W.P.No.7054 of 2005, W.P.M.P.No.7722 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali Kumaran for M/s.McGAN Law Firm For the Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, A.G.P. ORDER Heard Mr.N.Murali Kumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and with the consent of either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the erstwhile Tamil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly a change of opinion. It is further submitted that in the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Orient Litho Press, [2015] 82 VST 553 (Mad) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Premier Litho Works and Another, [2009] 26 VST 205 (Mad), the identical transaction as done by the petitioner was held to be a works contract. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent by referring to the written instructions given by the second respondent submitted that the transaction done by the petitioner is not a works contract and the petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, the orders were set aside by the Appellate Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d material which were printed by the dealer on orders received from their customers, according to their specification using their own paper. Therefore, this is one more reason to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice. 8. The decision referred to by the learned Additional Government Pleader made in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Cornwallis Press and Another, [2004] 134 STC 174 would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the said case, the State filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal. The Tribunal granted relief in favour of the dealer by following the decision in the case of Dhayanidhi Press v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1999] 112 STC 37 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
