TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refrom the charges towards labour and service. The Revenue has not made out a case to revise the order passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed - tax case revision dismissed. - TAX CASE (REVISION)No.185 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam and P. Velmurugan, JJ. R. Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader, for the petitioner. ORDER Heard Mr. R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner. 2. This revision petition is directed against the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) Madurai. In fact, the said common order in respect of various other dealers who are mosaic industries entered into a works contract- agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid the value for the contract and held that 65% of the total value of the work represented the price of mosaic tiles supplied and brought that amount to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act). Testing the correctness of such procedure being adopted by the Assessing Officer, this Court held as follows:- 21. In the light of the facts, decisions and the findings of the authorities, we will have to find out whether the view taken by the assessing officer and the Board of Revenue is correct or the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is correct. No doubt, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, it is difficult to lay down any rule of universal application to find out whether a particular contract is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant/assessee, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Tiles and Cement Industries v. State of Maharashtra [1975] 36 STC 326 is clearly distinguishable in the sense that clause 9(a) in the agreement makes all the difference which weighed with the Bombay High Court as seen from the judgment which has also been extracted above. Likewise, the reliance placed by the learned Additional Government Pleader on an observation in the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in [1983] 53 STC 124 (United Mosaics v. State of Andhra Pradesh), in our view, is not helpful. 6. After taking note of the above referred decision in the case of S.Chandrasekaran, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d found fault with the manner in which the Assessing officer completed the assessment. Therefore, Appellate Assistant Commissioner after holding the legal position in favour of the respondent-dealer remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in the light of the judicial pronouncements referred to above. 7. Admittedly, the Revenue has not filed any appeal to the Tribunal as against the finding rendered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the case of the respondent-dealer is covered by the judgment in the case of S.Chandrasekaran (supra). 8. It is the respondent-dealer who filed the appeal before the Tribunal challenging that portion of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details in a tabulated format. With the above modification, the Assessing Officer was directed to levy appropriate tax for the turnover sustained in respect of sand and the rest of the turnover sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeals before him were ordered to be deleted. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the Revenue has not questioned the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rendering a finding that the case is covered by the decision in the case of S.Chandrasekaran's case and the other decision in Tamil Nadu Mosaic Manufacturers Association(supra) , the Revenue has not made out a case to revise the order passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
