TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the file of the respondent. The appellant is a contractor for windows and doors and mainly engaged in the nature of 'works contract', at the premises of their customers, and according to the specifications, provided by them. In the course of their regular business, the appellant purchased raw materials or other goods in the nature of Aluminium channels, mainly used in Aluminium partition works or erection of Aluminium doors, at the place of the customers situated, inside the State of Tamil Nadu. Goods purchased from local dealers inside the State are done, as against Form XVII made on concessional levy, at the rate of 4% along with the surcharge due. 3. The appellant has further contended that from the year 2001 onwards, they have availed option of payment of tax at the compounded rate of 4% prescribed, under Section 7-C of the local Act, by addressing an option letter to the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbatore/respondent. Hence, each year, the appellant has availed the concession under Section 7-C, the compounding provision. 4. For the Assessment year TNGST 2004-2005, the appellant has been originally asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntract, based on the specification provided, and that it was not a ready made or a product that could be brought, under the definition of sale. It is also the contention of the appellant that they were also registered with the file of the Central Excise Department, as works contractors, and been regularly, paying service tax on the nature of activity carried on by them. Despite the above, the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes)/respondent, vide order dated 14.12.2010 has mulcked the appellant with tax liability, at the rate of 12%, on the entire turnover of Rs. 70,59,413/- and fastened penalty, at the rate of 150%. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed W.P.No.1364/2011 for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 14.12.2010. 7. On the facts and circumstances, the writ court, has observed as here under: "4. From the facts pleaded, it is seen that the petitioner-assessee is a dealer in aluminium doors, windows, etc. and they did not dispute that they fabricated and erected aluminium doors, windows, etc., as per the orders of the customers giving specifications, designs and size. In order to have a proper execution of the work thus granted, the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orks contract receipts, for the year and thus, the appellant has rightly filed the same for the assessment year 2004-2005 and that the original assessment was completed on 29.12.2004. However, after five years, and by change of opinion, the respondent has revised the assessment, under a different head, section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, by levying tax, at the rate of 12%, as per first schedule of Part B of TNGST Act, on the entire works contract receipts of Rs. 70,59,413/- for the Assessment year 2004-2005, which is erroneous. 12. Bringing it to the notice of the court that the principles of law decided in T.C.(R) No.1977/2006 dated 20.04.2012, rendered by this court and applied by the writ court, in declining the relief, prayed for by the appellant, for issuance of a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 14.12.2000 has been reversed, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kone Elevator India Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2014) 7 SCC 1, Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that inasmuch as the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, referred to above, has been reversed, the appellant is entit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as per the annexure to the contract, at the site. Perusal of the revised Assessment Order shows that the assessee, in reply to the notice dated 18.11.2010, has categorically replied that the activity to supply aluminium sections, hardware locks and beading etc, at different sites and fabrication of the same, to suit different sizes, at the site and that the doors and windows, cannot be said to be pre-fabricated. It is the further contention of the appellant that after the works contract was received, fabrication was done at the site, glasses and doors was fixed at the site and therefore, there is no question of any manufacturing activity or fabrication done, at any other place, except at the worksite, and in such circumstances, the activity would not fall under the purview of sale, nor there was any trading transaction. Going through the material on record, we are of the considered view that the explanation offered has not been considered, in proper perspective with reference to the meaning of the word 'sale' or 'works contract'. 17. Going through the material on record, it could be deduced that the Assessing Officer, has merely considered that there was purcha....