TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as finished goods, he is not liable to pay tax under section 3(2) of the said Act and entitled to get deduction as per section 3B(2)(b) of the same. Since the decisions relied upon by the respondent/petitioner are later in point of time and since in the said decisions identical matters have been dealt with and ultimately found that in case of works contract, the person who engaged in the works contract, need not pay tax on finished goods as per section 3(2) of the said Act and he is entitled to get deduction under section 3B(2)(b) of the said Act, it is needless to say that the contention put forth on the side of the appellants/respondents cannot be accepted, whereas, the contention put forth on the side of the respondent/petitioner is rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estored the order passed by the second appellant/second respondent. The order passed by the first appellant herein/first respondent has been challenged by way of filing W.P. (MD) No. 786 of 2005 under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single judge after considering the factual situation and also manner of demand made by the second appellant/second respondent has allowed W.P. (MD) No. 786 of 2005 and thereby set aside the order passed by the first appellant/first respondent. Against the order passed by the learned single judge, the present writ appeal has been preferred at the instance of the respondents as appellants. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants/respondents has repeatedly contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances, the order passed by the first respondent/first appellant herein is erroneous and the same is challenged by way of filing W.P. (MD) No. 786 of 2005 and the learned single judge after considering the nature of work done by the respondent/ petitioner has rightly allowed the same and therefore, the order passed by the learned single judge does not require any interference. It is seen from the divergent contentions put forth on either side that the respondent/petitioner has been doing the work of manufacturing rolling shutters by way of purchasing steel and other base materials. The only legal point which has now winched to the fore in the present writ appeal is as to whether the respondent/petitioner is bound to pay tax as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the decisions, identical matters have been dealt with and both the Division Benches have uniformly and consistently held that if a person carries on his work on the basis of works contract and in connection with works contract purchased raw materials and subsequently converted the same as finished goods, he is not liable to pay tax under section 3(2) of the said Act and entitled to get deduction as per section 3B(2)(b) of the same. Since the decisions relied upon by the respondent/petitioner are later in point of time and since in the said decisions identical matters have been dealt with and ultimately found that in case of works contract, the person who engaged in the works contract, need not pay tax on finished goods as per section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
