2011 (4) TMI 1268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1959 made in connection with the turnover pertaining to the job-work done by the assessee. The assessment year under consideration is 1985-86. The assessee herein is a dealer in hides and skins. The assessee-petitioner executed works contract on a turnover of Rs. 7,87,140 during the assessment year under consideration and collected tax at 70 per cent of the turnover of Rs. 3,93,423 based on the provisions of section 3B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as it stood then. The assessing officer levied penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Since the entire turnover was to be allowed as deduction, the tax at five per cent collected on the turnover of 70 per cent would be recovered by way of penalty. The as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... long after the assessment year under consideration, no exception could be taken to the petitioner collecting the tax and the same could not be held as an unauthorised collection to invite the provisions under section 22(2) of the Act. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue and perused the material on record. It is seen that the constitutional validity of the provisions levying tax on the execution of the works contract under section 3B of the Act came up for consideration before this court in the decision reported in [1993] 88 STC 289 (Mad) (Larsen and Toubro Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu), wherein, this court, upholding the charge, held that the provisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontravention of the provisions of section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal referred to the decision reported in [1996] 101 STC 516 (Mad) (State of Tamil Nadu v. Ganesh and Company), wherein, this court held that the tax collected by an unregistered dealer, not paid to the Department, attracted the provisions of section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal also referred to the decision reported in [1994] 95 STC 5 (SC) (Entry Tax Officer, Bangalore v. Chandanmal Champalal & Co.) on the aspect of unjust enrichment, consequently set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come on appeal befor....