Works contract deduction requires proof of statutory conditions, and excess tax collection can justify penalty.

A works contract deduction or exemption under Section 3-B(2-a) requires clear proof that the statutory conditions are met, including evidence that the materials used were purchased from outside the State. In the absence of substantiating material, the deduction was rightly rejected. Penalty under Section 22(2) was also sustained because the assessee collected sales tax at a higher rate than the rate applicable to sales to a Government department, bringing the conduct within the penalty provision. The assessment and penalty were upheld in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction or exemption under Section 3-B(2-a) in respect of materials stated to have been purchased from outside the State for execution of the works contract; (ii) Whether the levy of penalty under Section 22(2) was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction or exemption under Section 3-B(2-a) in respect of materials stated to have been purchased from outside the State for execution of the works contract.

Analysis: The claim for deduction failed for want of material. The assessee did not produce proof that the entire materials used in the execution of the works contract were purchased from outside the State. The record also did not support the plea that the contract was executed from outside Tamil Nadu with purchases made only from other States. In the absence of substantiating evidence, the authorities were justified in rejecting the deduction.

Conclusion: The claim under Section 3-B(2-a) was rightly rejected and the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of penalty under Section 22(2) was justified.

Analysis: The assessee had collected sales tax at 12% although tax at 4% was applicable on sales to the Government department. On those facts, the authorities and the Tribunal treated the case as attracting penalty in accordance with the statutory provision.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 22(2) was rightly sustained and the finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed in full, and the assessment as well as the penalty were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction or exemption claim in a works contract must be supported by clear evidence showing that the statutory conditions are satisfied, and penalty is sustainable where tax is collected contrary to the applicable rate.

---