Court grants tax deduction to dealer in works contract for rolling shutters, upholding writ petition.

The court upheld the decision allowing the writ petition, setting aside the order directing tax payment under section 3(2) and granting deduction under section 3B(2)(b) to the respondent, a dealer involved in works contract for making rolling shutters. The court confirmed the entitlement to deduction under section 3B(2)(b), dismissing the writ appeal and maintaining the initial judgment in W.P. (MD) No. 786 of 2005.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to order under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Applicability of tax under section 3(2) versus entitlement to deduction under section 3B(2)(b).

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order passed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, concerning the liability to pay tax under section 3(2) versus the entitlement to deduction under section 3B(2)(b). The respondent, a registered dealer purchasing materials for making rolling shutters, was directed by the assessing authority to pay tax under section 3(2). The appellate authority partially allowed the appeal, granting a deduction under section 3B(2)(b), which was set aside by the first respondent, leading to the filing of W.P. (MD) No. 786 of 2005 under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The main contention revolved around whether the respondent's work constituted a works contract exempt from tax under section 3B(2)(b) or if tax was applicable under section 3(2). The Government Advocate argued for tax liability under section 3(2), while the respondent's counsel asserted that the work was based on a works contract, justifying the entitlement to deduction.
The court considered precedents cited by both parties, highlighting conflicting decisions on similar matters. The respondent relied on cases supporting exemption under works contract, emphasizing that such decisions held that tax need not be paid on finished goods under section 3(2) but deductions were available under section 3B(2)(b).
Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the learned single judge who allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the first respondent. The court found that the respondent's work was indeed based on a works contract, entitling them to the deduction under section 3B(2)(b). Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the learned single judge in W.P. (MD) No. 786 of 2005.

---