1999 (12) TMI 849

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., was not brought to the tax under the provision of the Act, therefore the reassessment proceedings were initiated. As a result of reassessment for the period ending on March 31, 1987, the packing material which was purchased without payment of tax was valued at Rs. 1,44,413 and for the period ending on March 31, 1988 it was valued at Rs. 1,38,875, totalling Rs. 2,83,288 which had been used in doing the job-work but was not separately shown and for which no separate amount as price was charged. The assessing officer levied sales tax on the said amount by treating it to be sale of packing material. Tax at 4 per cent and surcharge on this additional amount, was quantified and interest amounting to Rs. 15,877 under section 11-B also levied. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....works contract is less than 15 per cent of the total value of work, was not brought into force retrospectively. The notification dated November 7, 1988 could not apply to transaction completed by that date. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to place any material to suggest that prior to said notification dated November 7, 1988 there was any such exemption prevalent where ratio of value of goods involved in execution of work vis-a-vis the full value of works contract was below particular level of percentage, then the value of such goods used in execution of works was exempted from payment of tax. In view of this it must be held that Rajasthan Tax Board as well as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) was not ri....