AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The revenue has come up with this revision u/s 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act against the order of
the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore dated 28.2.2003 and passed in Coimbatore Tribunal State Appeal No. 246/99
by formulating the questions of law to the following effect:
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal being the largest fact finding authority is legally correct in having merely affirmed
the order of the first appellate authority without appreciating the material facts by application of independent mind?
Whether the order of the Tribunal is correct in law in having concluded that the aluminium, glass, etc., purchased were used in the works
contract in the same form in which they were purchased without conversion and therefore eligible for exemption from tax?
We heard the argument of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Department.
The one and only issue involved in this revision is, whether the goods purchased and used in the construction activity of the assessee can be
assessed to tax u/s 3B of the T.N.G.S.T. Act. As per the Act, if the goods was purchased from registered dealers has already suffered tax and
was used in the same form, the same cannot be brought to tax once again. Not only the assessing officer but also the first appellate authority and
the ultimate fact finding authority have recorded a finding that the assessee has filed the purchase details for the purchase of aluminium, glass, flush
doors, cement, electrical goods, materials, paints etc., and they have also filed copies of labour charges paid. The dealer has purchased aluminium
Sections from registered dealers which have suffered tax already and used them as such and fixed in the building and no commercial different
product came into existence and hence the value is not taxable u/s 3B explanation (b). Since no manufacturing is done in the case of the dealer and
the materials were used as such they were held not liable to tax.
In the face of the above said factual finding, we do not find any merit in this case to interfere or take a different view that the goods were liable
to be taxed u/s 3B. Hence, the revision is dismissed.