2007 (10) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as "the dealer") was engaged in the business of purchases and sales of truck chassis. During the years under consideration, the dealer had purchased body from various persons and got it mounted over the chassis. The assessing authority levied the penalty under section 8D(6) of the Act on the ground that the dealer had got the body constructed over the chassis from the contractor under the works contract and, therefore, while making the payment to the contractor should have deducted four per cent and should have deposited the same in the State treasury as required under section 8D(1) of the Act. Since the dealer had not complied with the provisions of section 8D(1) and had not made deduction from the payment to the contractor inasmuc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is, the contract was in the nature of works contract. He submitted that the contract being in the nature of works contract, the dealer was under the obligation to deduct the tax from the payment to the contractor. The learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the apex court in the case of T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons v. State of Madras reported in [1975] 35 STC 24 has held that the construction of the body over the chassis is the sale of body and not in pursuance of works contract. He submitted that predominant object was to purchase the body and, therefore, there was a sale of bus body by the party to the dealer and the purchase of such body by the dealer. He submitted that the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is the finding of f....