TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent has treated the Steel purchased by the petitioner as sale of Steel Grills liable to tax under Section 3-B of the TNGST Act, 1959 - As per Section 3-B(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the taxable turnover of a dealer for the transfer of property involved in the execution of works contract shall be arrived after deducting the value of goods used in the execution of works contract which were purchased from a registered dealer and were liable to pay tax at the rate specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule of the Act. The Tribunal has not committed any error while reversing the decision of the second respondent Appellate Assistant Commissioner as the petitioner did not produce any documents to substantiate that the steel that was purchased from a registered dealer within the State of Tamil Nadu was not used in the execution of works contract. Further, the scope for interference / judicial review of an order of Tribunal is very limited. Unless the order suffers from violation of principle of natural justice or is found to be ex-facie perverse or arbitrary , the Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained. The impugned order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.35,00,132/-. If the portion relating to Steel is deducted an amount of Rs.14,79,126/- which had been assessed at the time of original assessment. So when the revision of assessment was taken up by the revisional authority consequent to the inspection that was conducted on 16.12.97, the dealer-respondent himself had estimated the tax liability in respect of the Steel and had arrived at the turnover and filed the statement before the revisional authority which were not taken note of either by the revisional authority nor by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. So the assessment that was made by the revisional authority on a turnover of Rs.24,32,693/- is restricted to the turnover that was admitted by the dealer-respondent to an extent of Rs. 20,21,006/-. The dispute is only with reference to the rate of tax. If the dealer-respondent had worked out the tax at 4% and left with that 4% then the question of converting the steel into grills would not arise. But he had also worked out the SC due, only because he had converted it into grills. If the working stopped with 4% then the steel that had been purchased had been used as such in the execution of works contract and the liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steel was purchased from unregistered dealers. It was therefore submitted that the proposal in the pre-assessment notice dated 06.02.1998 as confirmed by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent Appellate Commissioner in A.P.No.1192/1999. The second respondent Appellate Commissioner, by an order dated 13.12.1999, reversed the order of the third respondent with the following observations:- 4) I heard the arguments of both the representatives and also verified the records produced before me. This is a case of revision made based on the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials without any proper application of mind by the Assessing Authority. The Enforcement Officials have also sent the best judgement proposal without verifying as to whether the appellants have been earlier assessed to tax or not? This D3 proposal is dated 27.1.99 whereas the original order has been passed on 16.3.98 itself. If only the Enforcement Wing Officials had verified the assessment made earlier, they would not have sent this best judgement D3 proposal. The Assessing Authority has also not sent the file relating to origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the carpenters, and the fact that they have included the cooly charges paid to the carpenters to the purchase value and added gross profit of 8% thereon to arrive at the taxable turnover. They have not produced any records before me specifying the actual cooly charges paid to the carpenters. In view of the above I hold that addition 30% towards conversion and gross profit is proper. I sustain the assessment made for Rs.2,87,957/- at 8% and Rs.2,13,999/- at 11%. I dismiss the appeal relating to this issue. 7) In the original order passed, the Assessing Officer has found that they have paid tax in excess. He has adjusted the tax payment to the tax due. He has levied penalty under Section 12(3)(c) for the balated submission of returns only. However in the revised order passed he has levied penalty under Section 12(3)(b). The amount of penalty levied is also incorrect. If revised orders were passed as stated earlier, I hold that there would be only excess payment in the case on hand. Hence, I hold that the penalty levied under Section 12(3) (b) is not proper. I set aside the same. To conclude the appeal is MODIFIED. 7. As mentioned above, the order of the second respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the total of Rs.62,63,932/- and taxable turnover of Rs.35,00,132/- in his return. However, the taxable turnover was re-determined as Rs.39,93,764/- by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer namely, the third respondent has treated the Steel purchased by the petitioner as sale of Steel Grills liable to tax under Section 3-B of the TNGST Act, 1959. 12. As per Section 3-B(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the taxable turnover of a dealer for the transfer of property involved in the execution of works contract shall be arrived after deducting the value of goods used in the execution of works contract which were purchased from a registered dealer and were liable to pay tax at the rate specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule of the Act. 13. The tax on the Steel purchased by the petitioner was determined at 8% alleging that the petitioner had converted the Steel purchased into Grill. The amount confirmed by the third respondent was reversed by the second respondent. Later, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the same. 14. We are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error while reversing the decision of the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
