2010 (3) TMI 1005

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the business of contract of supply, erection, testing and commissioning of pumps and registered dealer on the file of the respondent herein both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the TNGST Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the CST Act"). It is contended by Mr. K. Soundararajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that for the assessment year 2005-06, the petitioner had exercised the option of paying the tax at compounding rate as required under section 7C of the TNGST Act by filing the return in form A1 and once the compounding option was accepted by the Department, a compounding order was also passed to that effect. Therefore, the transactions of the petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection (1) shall, so long as the option remains in force, not be required to maintain accounts of his business under this Act or the Rules made thereunder except the records in originals of the (works contract), extent of their execution and payments received or receivable in relation to such (works contract), executed or under execution." The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the provisions contained before the amendment in section 7C(4) of the TNGST Act, which reads as follows: "(4) A dealer, exercising option under sub-section (1) shall, so long as the option remains in force, not be required to maintain accounts of his business under this Act or the Rules made thereunder except the records in originals of the civ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n case is dismissed." The said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Devendran & Company [1996] 103 STC 95. The learned counsel also produced the work order issued by Indian Oil Corporation in favour of the petitioner, which was also submitted to the respondent. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the respondent had power under section 16 of the TNGST Act to reopen the assessment on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd. [2005] 140 STC 22. The reliance placed upon the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Kone Elevators' case [2005] 140 STC 22 is totally misconceived as in the present context, the pet....