Works contract steel tax: exemption fails without proof of use in the same form, and writ review will not reappreciate evidence.

Steel purchased for use in works contract transactions was taxable under Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 where the assessee could not show that the goods were used in the same form as purchased. The statutory exclusion under Section 3-B(2)(b) applies only when purchased goods from registered dealers are used without conversion, and the Tribunal relied on the assessee's admission and lack of supporting records to reject that claim. In judicial review under Article 226, the High Court confined itself to the decision-making process and found no perversity, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity in the Tribunal's order, so interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the steel purchased by the assessee and treated as converted into steel grills was liable to tax under Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the Tribunal's reversal of the appellate authority called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute arose from revision of the assessee's taxable turnover in respect of works contract transactions. The statutory scheme under Section 3-B and Section 3-B(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 permits exclusion of goods purchased from registered dealers and used in the execution of works contract in the same form in which they were purchased. On the facts, the Tribunal found that the assessee had itself admitted the steel-related liability and had not produced supporting documents to establish that the steel was used as such without conversion. The Court held that, in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it was concerned with the decision-making process and not with reappreciation of evidence, and found no perversity, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity in the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view that the steel component was taxable at 8% was upheld, and interference with the impugned order was declined.

---