TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2016. 2. The reasoning given in the impugned orders is similar; the variation is only qua the amounts referred to in the said orders. 3. For the purpose of adjudicating these writ petitions, the following, broad facts, are required to be noticed : 3.1. The petitioner herein is a Company, which entered into an agreement, apparently, with another entity by the name : M/s.Nagarjuna Oil Company Limited [in short NOCL ]. This agreement was executed on 26.05.2010 and is titled as "Terminalling Service Agreement" [in short the agreement ]. By virtue of the said agreement, the petitioner, was required to build storage terminals for the benefit of NOCL. Admittedly, the land, on which, the terminal was required to be constructed, was owned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. 3.6. Furthermore, under the agreement, NOCL is required to pay terminalling charges to the petitioner, in terms of Article 7 of the agreement. 4. The record also shows that the construction of the terminal has been sub-contracted by the petitioner to an entity by the name : M/s.ABIR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [in short ABIR ], which is registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [in short the Act ]. 5. Based on the aforesaid broad facts, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the agreement is in the nature of Build Own Operate and Transfer contract (in short a BOOT Contract ) and not a works contract, as has been sought to be portrayed by the first respondent. 5.1. The petitioner also contends that by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred the goods to the works spot of ABIR by making material issue voucher. This shows the dealers is doing contract works. 4. The dealers have purchased goods locally for which they have claimed ITC on the purchases. But they have not reported the disposal of goods in the return. The transfer of goods might have been reported in the return. Thus the Terminalling Service Agreement is defected (SIC). 5. These are all the normal conditions for contract agreements. But there is violations of provision of TNVAT Act 2006. 6. The dealers are works contractor according to our records. 7. The Section 5 of the Act is extracted in this para. There is transfer of property in goods during the assessment year. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eement executed between the petitioner and NOCL is a works contract. 6.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the mere fact that the payments are deferred cannot lead to the conclusion that the subject agreement is not in the nature of a works contract. This apart, Mr.Annamalai says, that the matter involves determination of disputed facts and therefore, the petitioner should be relegated to an alternate remedy by way of an appeal. 6.2. Insofar as the issue raised by the petitioner, with regard to adjustment of the payments made to ABIR under Rule 8(5)(c) of the 2007 Rules is concerned, Mr.Annamalai says, even this aspect can be dealt by the appellate authority. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner indicates to me, tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inion, since, the Revenue has raised the objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of alternate remedy, I find the stand of the Revenue unfair. 10.1. To my mind, the fact that time was spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petitions in this court would have to be taken into account, if, appeal(s) are preferred by the petitioner, vis-a-vis, the impugned orders. In this regard, the petitioner can have recourse to, if not Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 1963 Act), surely, to the principles analogous to the said provision. 10.2. That Section 14 of the 1963 Act, applies to quasi judicial authorities is now settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P.Steel Corporation V....