TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed. - Tax Case No. 55 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2017 - S. Manikumar And R. Pongiappan, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatesh For the Respondent : No appearance ORDER ( Order of the Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Instant Tax Case Revision Petition is directed against the order made in S.T.A.No.45 of 2005, dated 20/8/2011, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that the respondent, dealer in hardware chemicals was assessed, under the scheme of self assessment, at 4% on a turnover of ₹ 16,46,510/-, under works contract, for the year 2000 2001. Subsequently, responding to the notice issued, by the Department, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State has filed the instant Tax Case Revision Petition, on the following substantial questions of law:- (i). Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal, is correct in holding that any dealer who executed works contract may apply to the Assessing Authority along with first monthly return for the financial year, his option to pay tax shall be exercised under Section 7 C is with effective from 1/7/2002 and not on or before 31st January 2000? (ii). Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that compounding rate of tax for works contract under Section 7 (2) is from 1/7/2000 only and not applicable to be assessment year 2000 - 2001. 6. In support of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 8. Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Assessment for the year 2000 2001 has been revised and that the Assessing officer, Commercial Tax Officer, Evening Bazaar, Assessment Circle, has passed an order, on 16/3/2004, directing the respondent, to pay the balance tax of ₹ 60,921/-. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee/respondent has filed an appeal No.85 of 2004, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Chennai. 10. After considering the rival submissions and statutory provisions, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in A.P.No.85 of 2004, dated 30/9/2014, ordered as hereunder:- The contention of the appellant is that the appellants have not executed any works ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-Rule 15 (4-CC) has been amended by G.O.ms.76 (B1) dated 27/6/2002 and Form A 11 prescribed for exercising option for payment of compounded tax under Section 7 C has also been amended by above Government Order effective from 1/7/2002 only, the above Rule 15 (4-CC) and Form A 11 has no application to the appellants as the disputed turnover related to assessment year 2000 01. In the absence of any prescribed form, return or manner for exercising option for payment of compounded rate of tax under Section 7 C of the Act (upto 1/7/2002) as rightly contended by the appellants, the inclusion and payment of tax at 4% on the entire works contract receipt amount of ₹ 16,48,510/- in the monthly return filed March 2001 and in the Self Assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of 4% at any time not even before the commencement of financial year or along with the monthly return on the commencement of each works contract. The appellants have contended that the above reason was not mentioned in the pre-revision notice dated 31/12/2003 which is amounting to denial of natural justice and a grave irregularity vitiating the entire assessment proceedings. There is considerable force in the above contention of the appellant. Verification of assessment file revealed that Assessing Authority in his ore assessment notice has observed that the appellants had claimed the compounded rate of tax at 4% on a turnover of ₹ 16,48,511/- as works contract but had not furnished any details, records, documents for the wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds inter alia that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, erred in allowing works contract turnover of ₹ 16,46,510/- at 11%. After considering the provisions, and the decision of this Court, in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ball Bearing Centre, {41 STC 264}, the Tribunal has framed the following point for consideration. Whether the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in allowing the appeal, setting aside the revision made by the Assessing Officer is legally correct or not 12. Upon consideration of the statutory provisions, and submission of the parties, vide order, dated 20/8/2011, at para 11 in S.T.A.No.451 of 2005, the Tribunal, held as follows:- We have examined the grounds of STA filed by the revenue along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
