TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property of the chemicals, hence, bleaching contract attracts sales tax as in the case of dyeing contract, when the chemicals are purchased from outside the State. Penalty - Held that: - penalty set aside on the ground that there was no suppression of sale in the turnover. Revision allowed. - T.C.(MD) No.183 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2017 - T.S. Sivagnanam and P. Velmurugan, JJ. Raja Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader, for the petitioner. R. D. Ganesan for the respondent. ORDER Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioner and Mr.R.D.Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he process are deposited permanently on the yarn or cloth changing its shade and colour and in this process the entire dyes becoming part and parcel of the yarn or cloth and remaining permanently on it. 6. The Tribunal ought to have distinguished dyes and chemicals from that of consumables like fule, welding electrodes which are exhausted or disappeared after the work is over and no remanent is left over. 7. The decisions relied on by the Tribunal are not relevant in as much as they pertained to consumables which dissipiate or disappear during the exemption of the works. 8. The Tribunal has failed to follow the decision of this Hon'ble Special Tribunal in the case of Tvl. Perumal colour Company Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer of property of any goods. The very fact of the yarn being bleached by a chemical process by applying the chemical will clearly point out that there is transfer of property of the chemicals, hence, bleaching contract attracts sales tax as in the case of dyeing contract, when the chemicals are purchased from outside the State. With the above finding, Tax Case Revision filed by the revenue was allowed. However, by referring to the decision in the case of Stat reported in [2014] Vol 69 VST 443, the Division Bench cancelled the levy of penalty on the ground that there was no suppression of sale in the turnover and the claim of the assessee was rejected only on the interpretation placed on Section 3B of the Act. 6. Thus, following th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
