SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Mad) 1109

A.SUBBULAKSHMY, R.JAYASIMHA BABU
APPARELS AND HANDLOOM EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K. M. Vijayan - Petitioners.
T. Ayyasamy - Respondents.

ORDER

R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. - Counsel contends that the words in article 366(29-A) of the Constitution "whether as goods or in some other form" which are found in parenthesis in article 366(29-A), sub-clause (b) which reads : "a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract" - should be understood to mean, the goods which change their form into other goods, and are used in the changed form in carrying out a works contract, and therefore the provision in section 3-B(2)(b) of the TNGST Act which reads "all amounts for which any goods, specified in the First Schedule or Second Schedule, are purchased from registered dealers liable to pay tax under this Act and used in the execution of works contract in the same form in which such goods were purchased", is inconsistent with article 366(29-A) and therefore the allegedly offending words in section 3-B(2)(b) of the Act should be struck down.

Sub-section (2) to section 3-B of the State Act provides for the deduction to be made from the total turnover of the dealer who is engaged in execution of the works contract, to arrive at the taxable turnover. Sub-clause

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top