TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the extended definition of goods under CST Act came on the Statute book only with effect from 11.05.2002, no tax under the CST Act can be imposed on the Assessee prior to 11.05.2002, on works contracts. Petition allowed - decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it the requirements of a particular customer. The labels, by themselves, could not really be sold in the open market, since without the product of the customer being packed with any package material, there was no use for the labels. It could not be the case of the appellants that persons who manufactured spurious goods under the very same brand name,had an opportunity to buy these labels, so as to pass off their goods as those of the customers of the dealer. The contractor undertaking to do the work would not necessarily be deemed to sell the materials by the fact that in the execution of the contract for work some materials were used and the property/goods so used, passed to the other party. Therefore there was no reason to interfere with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and supplying it to the individual customers as per their requirements obviously amounts to "works contract" and not sale, during the relevant period and as such since the extended definition of goods under CST Act came on the Statute book only with effect from 11.05.2002, no tax under the CST Act can be imposed on the Assessee prior to 11.05.2002, on works contracts. The period in question is 1994- 1995 i.e., prior to said amendment of CST and the therefore the matter is squarely covered by the said Judgment of this Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner-II, dated 08.07.1999 is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the Assessee is allowed. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|