Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the ducting work executed at the customer's site constituted a taxable sale of a different commercial commodity rather than an indivisible works contract, and whether the assessee was entitled to relief under section 3B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
Analysis: The materials were found to have been supplied separately and the invoices showed that the material component was separately charged, with a substantial advance taken towards materials. The duct was held to be a product distinct from the original G.I. sheets, since the process involved cutting, fitting and assembling the sheets into ducting that could not be simply reversed to restore the original sheets. On that factual basis, the Court rejected the plea that the transaction was a simple composite contract involving labour and materials, and also negatived the claim that the work could escape assessment merely because it was executed at site. The separate charging of material value and the transformation into a different commercial commodity supported taxation of the turnover.
Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed, and the turnover from ducting works was held taxable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where materials are separately supplied and charged, and the end product emerging from site-based fabrication is a distinct commercial commodity, the transaction is taxable as such notwithstanding the plea of an indivisible works contract.