TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules no tax on sale turnover of tins under Sales Tax Act due to works contract.</h1> <h3>State of Tamil Nadu Versus Oswal Oils and Vanaspathy</h3> State of Tamil Nadu Versus Oswal Oils and Vanaspathy - [1996] 100 STC 339 (Mad) Issues:1. Whether the sale turnover of tins by the assessee is liable to be taxed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. Whether penalty is leviable under section 12(3) of the Act.3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no tax is leviable on the sale value of the tins.4. Whether the contract between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation constitutes a works contract or involves a sale of tins.Analysis:Issue 1:The Department contended that the sale turnover of tins by the assessee should be taxed under the Act as the tins were sold to the State Trading Corporation. However, the assessee argued that the agreement constituted a works contract, and the tins were procured as part of the works entrusted to them. The Court examined the agreement and concluded that the consolidated amount paid by the State Trading Corporation to the assessee covered the procurement of tins, filling them with oil, and transportation, indicating a works contract rather than a sale of tins. Citing relevant case law, the Court held that the passing of title to goods does not necessarily imply a sale, and in this case, no separate payment was made for the tins, supporting the works contract interpretation.Issue 2:The assessing officer levied a penalty under section 12(3) of the Act due to the non-disclosure of the sale turnover related to tins by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially confirmed the penalty, but later held that no penalty was leviable. The Tribunal, following precedents, dismissed the department's enhancement petition regarding the penalty. Since the Court found no tax leviable on the sale value of tins, it deemed it unnecessary to address the penalty issue, ultimately dismissing the petition.Issue 3:The Department challenged the Tribunal's decision that no tax was leviable on the sale value of the tins. The Department argued that the sale value was reimbursed by the State Trading Corporation, constituting a sale of tins. Conversely, the assessee maintained that the agreement was a works contract, with the State Trading Corporation bearing the sale value of the tins. By examining the bills, the Court found that the State Trading Corporation had purchased the tins directly, and there was no evidence of the assessee paying for the tins, supporting the conclusion that no sale occurred.Issue 4:The Court analyzed relevant case law on works contracts, emphasizing that each case's nature depends on the specific facts. By reviewing the agreement between the assessee and the State Trading Corporation, the Court determined that the arrangement constituted a works contract, as the State Trading Corporation directed the procurement of tins without a separate payment for the tins, indicating no sale transaction. The Court's decision was further supported by the bills showing the State Trading Corporation as the purchaser of the tins, leading to the dismissal of the petition.In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no tax leviable on the sale value of the tins due to the nature of the agreement between the parties, which was determined to be a works contract rather than a sale transaction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
