Judgment · High Court

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 10.06.2010Coram :THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHTax Case (Revision) No.20 of 2010 Tvl. Orjay Packaging Products3/278, Thadagam RoadCoimbatore. .. Petitionervs. State of Tamil Nadurep. by the Commercial Tax OfficerThudialur CircleCoimbatore. .. RespondentTax Case Revision filed under Section 9(2-A) of the CentralSales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu GeneralSales Tax Act, against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales TaxAppellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench), Coimbatore passed in C.T.A.No.279of 1996 dated 18.09.1997. T.C.20 of 2010 is filed against C.T.A.279of 1996 on the file of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additonal Bench, Coimbatore dated 18.9.97 against the Order dated 31.5.96 on the fileof Appellate Assistant Commisssioner(C.T), Coimbatore in AppealNo.C.S.T. 13/96 dt. against order dated 11.12.95 ilnCST.No.577233/94-95 on the file of Commercial Tax Officer, ThidiyalurCircleFor Petitioner : Mr.P.RadhakrishnanFor Respondent : Mr.Haja Naziruddin Spl. Govt. Pleader (Taxes).

O R D E R(Judgment of the Court was delivered by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.)We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.HajaNazirrudin, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), who tooknotice for the respondent.

The substantial question of law raised in this revision iswhether the transaction carried out by the petitioner is 'sale' or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 'works contract'. In fact, this order of assessment came to bepassed on 11.12.1995 and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passedan order dated 03.05.1996 confirming the assessment made by theoriginal authority. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated18.09.1997, has affirmed the order of original authority as well asthat of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Though the revisioncame to be filed in the year 1998, it has come up for admission onlytoday after twelve long years.

A perusal of the order of assessment disclose that thepetitioner reported the turnover based on its accounts and also filed'Form-C' declarations claiming concessional rate of tax. Theassessment year related to 1994-95 under the CST Act. Having thussubmitted itself to the assessment being made virtually admitting thetransaction as one of sale, the petitioner cannot now be permitted totake a 'U' turn and raise a question as to whether it will fall underone of 'sale' or 'works contract'. It is too late in the day for thepetitioner to raise such a question and we do not find any merits toentertain this revision. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order ofthe Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as that of the Tribunalwould satisfactorily explain as to how the transaction of thepetitioner would fall within the four corners of expression "sale"and such a finding having been rendered based on the facts involvedin this case, we do not find any scope to entertain this revision.

For all the above stated reasons, the revision fails and thesame is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarATRTo1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Coimbatore Bench.2. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Coimbatore.3. The Commercial Tax Officer Thudiyalur Circle Coimbatore – 18.TC (R) No.20 of 2010ka(co)pmk.22.6.2010