AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—For the assessment year 1997-98, the first respondent-assessee/the Premier Litho Works, reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 58,99,762.45 and Rs. 4,47,442.65, respectively under the CST Act and claimed exemption for Rs. 2,31,983 as inter-State coolie printing receipts and a sum of Rs. 52,20,336.80 as printing works done intended for single user. That has been rejected by the assessing officer, on the premise that the transaction cannot be regarded as a works contract and it is an outright sale, and by reason of, the finding brought the said turnover for taxation at the rate of ten per cent. The appeal filed by the assessee has not yielded any result as the first appellate authority confirmed the order of the assessment. The respondent carried the matter on second appeal to the Tribunal, the ultimate fact-finding authority. The Tribunal following its earlier order in respect of another assessee in alkenes crafts, Kovilpatty in MTA Nos. 660 of 1994 and 664 of 1994 has allowed the appealfiled by the assessee. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue.
Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
It could be gathered from the order of the lower authorities that the transaction involved is printing of label for a particular customer as per the specification designed for that customer. The issue has been settled by the honourable Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan [1989] 73 STC 1, Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370 wherein it was held as follows:
...Where the finished product supplied to a particular customer is not commercial commodity in the sense that it cannot be sold in the market to any other person, the transaction is only a works contract...
In the light of the abovesaid judgment of the honourable Supreme Court and in the absence of materials to take a different view in respect of the transaction of the assessee, I am of the considered view that there is no extenuating circumstances for me to take a different view than the one taken by the ultimate fact-finding authority as well as the assessing authority. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.