TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon order dated 21.02.2014 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal [Additional Bench], Chennai, in STA.Nos.648 to 650/2006 and 29/2007 for the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2002-2003 and 1998-1999. (2) The revision petitioner, a Company, is a civil contractor, involved in the execution of civil contracts of various State Government Undertakings, Boards, Government Departments and other Companies. The petitioner is an assessee in the Books of Commercial Tax Office, Nungambakkam Circle, Chennai-600 006. While so, the petitioner's place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing of the Department on 05.03.2004 and in the inspection, it was found that the petitioner had effected purchases of building materials from o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h finding, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the disputed tax and penalty for all the Assessment Years. The Revenue, aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, preferred Sales Tax Appeals in STA.Nos.648 to 650/2006 and 29/2007. (5) The Appellate Tribunal, vide common order dated 21.02.2014, allowed the Revenue's Appeals on the basis of its findings that the Dealer had failed to prove that the inter-State movement of goods was occasioned by the Works Contract entered into by them. Aggrieved by the common order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Dealer has filed the above Tax Case Revisions. (6) At the time of admission of the Tax Cases, the following substantial questions of law were framed for considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particular dealer in other States''? E) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal failed to note that for the purpose of Section of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it is not necessary that the contract of sale must itself provide for and cause the movement of goods but such movement should be the result of a covenant in the contract or is an incident of that contract as per the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in K.G.Khosala and Co.[P] Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 17 STC 473 [SC] and confirmed and reiterated in various decisions of the Supreme Courts and High Courts? (7) From the above substantial questions of law, it is seen that the core issue that arise for consideration is whether the Dealer is enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey were purchased and that, they did not undergo any change in form so as to emerge as new products. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also found that the purchases were inter-State only and they were taxed at 4% under the Central Sales Tax Act, with valid 'C' Forms and therefore, they could not be taxed under the TNGST Act. On such findings, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the Appeals. The Tribunal, on appeals by the Revenue, accepted the stand of the Revenue that the Dealer failed to prove that the goods were purchased in pursuance of a Contract. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to prove the inextricable link between the inter-State purchases and the Works Contract executed in the State of Tamil Nadu. (8) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Whereas, the Dealer claims that all materials were placed even before the Assessing Officer to establish that they were entitled to exemption under the provisions of Section 3-B[2][a] of the TNGST Act, the Tribunal, even without verifying whether the evidences were available or not, merely stated that no such evidence is placed. The Assessing Officer proceeded on the footing that there was no specific condition in the contract that the goods must be purchased from a particular Dealer in other States for use in the Works Contract. The Assessing Officer on the premise that the goods involved were not rare goods but ordinarily available in local markets, found that the goods were tradeable goods and not manufactured for specific requirement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore us, both the parties have not placed any documents or materials so as to enable us to decide the legal issue raised before us, namely, whether the Dealer is entitled to claim deduction under Section 3-B[2][a] of the TNGST Act on the turnover of inter-State purchases of materials used by it in the Works Contract. Hence, the substantial questions of law [A] and [B] are answered in favour of the Dealer. (12) In the view we have taken on the substantial questions of law [A] and [B], the other substantial questions of law, viz., [C], [D] and [E], are not considered. (13) In fine, the Tax Case Revisions are disposed of by setting aside the common order dated 21.02.2014 made in STA.Nos.648 to 650/2006 and 29/2007, by the Tamil Nadu Sale....