9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF INDIA LTD. [ 1972 (1) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] ; HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA [ 1983 (12) TMI 259 - SUPREME COURT] ; HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA [ 1983 (12) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT] and STATE OF TAMIL NADU VERSUS ANANDAM VISWANATHAN [ 1989 (1) TMI 359 - SUPREME COURT] , this Court came to the conclusion that the very wording of the agreement made it clear that it was a job work. It was concluded that the photo identity cards supplied to the CEO are not commercial commodities and the same cannot be used or sold by the Petitioner to any other person. The material purchased and utilized in preparation of photo identity cards was very negligible and incidental. The agreement between the Petitioner and M/s. IDL does not answer the characteristics of a works contract as defined in Section 2 (jj) of the OST act. There is also no element of sale as defined under Section 2 (g) thereof. The dominant object is indeed skill and labour to convert paper and board into corrugated cartons or boxes - Decided in favor of assessee. Appeal allowed. - STREV Nos. 40, 41 and 42 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2021 - THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d facts are that the Petitioner Assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing cardboard boxes and cartoons. It is stated that the raw materials required for the purpose include paper, stitching wire, ink, adhesive and kraft paper. On 3rd July, 1995 a meeting was held between M/s. I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. (IDL) and the Petitioner at which IDL placed orders on the Petitioner for the supply of corrugated paperboard boxes as per the specification and size provided by IDL. The relevant clause of the minutes of the meeting are Clause-A which notes the agreement regarding the size of paper and board that was to be supplied by IDL to the Petitioner for conversion into corrugated paperboard boxes. The requirement of paper and board was indicated in clause B. It was agreed that IDL shall provide 3% towards process loss/weightage on paper and board. The conversion charge was agreed at ₹ 5.25 per box without linking with the sizes of the box/weight. It was decided that IDL should arrange for delivery of paper and board for which all expenses will be borne by the IDL for sending the corrugated box after conversion. IDL was to consider ₹ 0.30 per box towards freight, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 16th August, 2000 for the period 1998-99. Three appeals were filed by the Petitioner against the aforementioned three orders of the STO. The ACCT passed a common order dated 31st December, 2002 dismissing the appeals. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, three appeals i.e. S.A. Nos.2128, 2129 and 2130 of 2002-03 were filed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal. By a common judgment dated 21st September, 2005, the Tribunal also dismissed all the above three appeals of the Petitioner. 10. This Court has heard the submission of Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party (Sales Tax). 11. It is contended by Mr. Ray that the STO, as well as the ACCT and the Tribunal, misconstrued the arrangement between IDL and the Petitioner as a works contract whereas it was a pure and simple job work, which was not amenable to sales tax at all. Mr. Ray referred to Section 2 (jj) of the OST Act which defines 'works contract' and Section 2 (g) thereof which defines 'sale'. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner received ₹ 12.70 per photo identity card. The amount was shown as gross turnover by the Petitioner for supply of such photo identity cards. The Petitioner there claimed expenditure of ₹ 6,13,12,696/- towards labour and service charges. 14.2 The question that arose for determination in M/s. Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (supra) was whether the work undertaken by the Petitioner there was a works contract or a job contract? The Assessing Officer allowed 30% of the gross turnover towards labour charges and treated the balance as taxable turnover and levied 4% tax thereon. The first appellate authority rejected the Petitioner's appeal which order was affirmed by the Tribunal. Thereafter the Petitioner there filed a sales tax revision case in this Court. 14.3 Before this Court, the Department sought to contend that the Tribunal had correctly come to the conclusion that the transaction undertaken by the Petitioner in that case is in the nature of sale for cash. 14.4 After referring to the decisions in Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B.C. Kame (1977) 39 STC 237; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels of India (1972) 29 STC 474 (SC); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
