9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n) No.495 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2019 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mrs. Justice T. Krishnavalli For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Chellapandian, AAG assist by Mrs.S.Srimathy For the Respondent : Mrs.S.Srimathy ORDER DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. The Revenue has filed this tax revision before this Court, which was transferred to Special Tribunal under Section 38 of the TNGST Act, 1959 and upon its abolition in the year 2002, has again come back to this Court. 2.The present revision is directed against the order of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai in Madurai Tribunal State Appeal No.623/99 decided on 04.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus no transfer of ink involved in the execution of works contract of printing. It may be pertinent to observe that what is taxable under the Act is the value of the goods which gets transferred to the customer in the execution of works contract either as goods or in any other form and not the value of goods used or consumed in the execution of the works contract. If such user of consumption does not result in transfer of property in those goods in any form to the customer. That being so, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no transfer of property in ink involved in the execution of contract of printing either as ink or in any other form. Further, in the case of Pest Control India Limited, repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rised Representative that as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Tvl.S.G.Jayaraj Nadar and Sons Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 28 STC 700 and also as per the Honourable High Court of Madras in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Palayamkottai, reported in 125 STC 505, the assessment has to be considered as one falls under Section 12(1) of the Act. So, no penalty under Section 12(3)(b) attracts in this case. Therefore, we found that there is no force in the grounds raised by the appellants revenue in the State appeal to restore the penalty deleted by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
