9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the same could easily be treated as non-taxable works undertaken by the dealer concerned. As per the case in hand, admittedly, the works were undertaken in the Assessment Year 1999-2000, that is well before the cutoff date of 11.05.2002. In view of the contract documents, which have been placed, there are no doubt over the works that have been undertaken by the petitioner to state that they are work contracts. If those are work contracts undertaken by the petitioner, that too prior to 11.05.2002, the said work contracts cannot be brought under the purview of the tax net under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The order impugned, passed by the Tribunal insofar as allowing the appeal filed before the Tribunal by the State as well as the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso been included and it has become taxable. However, the issue relating to the present lis is of the Assessment Year 1999-2000, that is well before 11.05.2002. 2.4. In this context, it is the case of the petitioner that those were work contracts, which have been undertaken outside the jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu, that is at Mumbai and Secunderabad respectively, and since the work contracts were prior to the cutoff date of 11.05.2002, those kind of work contracts cannot be brought under the taxable purview within the meaning of sale as stipulated under Section 2(g) of the Central Tax Act, 1956. 2.5. These points were also raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal by way of the following grounds: ... (vi) In-any event the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome to the conclusion that there is no proof filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal even to establish that the work undertaken by th petitioner is in the nature of work contract, that too outside the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu. 2.8. In view of the said conclusion arrived by the Tribunal, the Tribunal, at no occasion, might have thought of any necessity to go into the other aspect as to whether the work contracts undertaken by the petitioner prior to the cutoff date, that is 11.05.2002, are taxable or not. Resultantly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the State and reversed the order passed by the appellant/Deputy Commissioner and also insofar as the COP filed by the petitioner, only in respect of Form XVII, the COP wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittedly, the works were undertaken in the Assessment Year 1999-2000, that is well before the cutoff date of 11.05.2002. In view of the contract documents, which have been place before us, we do not have any doubt over the works that have been undertaken by the petitioner to state that they are work contracts. If those are work contracts undertaken by the petitioner, that too prior to 11.05.2002, the said work contracts cannot be brought under the purview of the tax net under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 6. This view of ours is further fortified by virtue of the decision made in the case of Sundaram Industries Limited (supra) , which in fact was following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Builders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
