The taxable turnover of a works contractor for the transfer of property involved in the execution of works contract shall be arrived after deducting the value of goods used in the execution of works contract which were purchased from a registered dealer and were liable to pay tax at the rate specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule of the Act.

W.P.No.25600 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On

01.11.2022

Pronounced On

09.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.25600 of 2007

and

M.P.No.1 of 2007

M/s.G.V.Constructions,

48, Park Avenue, Ground Floor,

Race Course, Coimbatore.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,

(Additional Bench),

Coimbatore.

2.The Additional Appellate Assistant

Commissioner (CT),

Coimbatore.

3.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,

Trichy Road Circle,

Coimbatore.

... Respondents

_____________

Page No. 1 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.25600 of 2007

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first

respondent in CTSA.No.194/00, dated 12.12.2006 and quash the same and

restore the order of the second respondent in A.P.No.1992/99 dated

13.12.1999.

For Petitioner

:: Mr.K.J.Chandran

For R2 & R3

:: Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran

Government Advocate

O R D E R

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

AND

C.SARAVANAN, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for

the records of the first respondent Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate

Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”] relating to the impugned

order dated 12.12.2006 in Coimbatore Tribunal State Appeal No.194/2000

[hereinafter referred to as “C.T.S.A.No.194/2000”] and to restore the order

of the second respondent Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner

(CT) [hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Commissioner”] dated

13.12.1999 in A.P.No.1992/1999.

_____________

Page No. 2 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.25600 of 2007

2. By the impugned order dated 12.12.2006, the order of the

Appellate Commissioner dated 13.12.1999 in A.P.No.1992/1999 allowing

the petitioner's appeal was reversed by the Tribunal in

C.T.S.A.No.194/2000 filed by the third respondent herein. Relevant portion

of the impugned order of the Tribunal reads as under:-

As seen from the above, the dealer-respondent

had filed the very same statement that was filed before

the revisional authority to the pre-revision notice that

was issued by him before this forum also. In the

statement that was filed before us at the time of

hearing also disclosed a turnover of Rs.35,00,132/- as

taxable turnover and in which the steel forms a part of

the turnover i.e the purchase value of Steel was

Rs.18,71,302/- to which 8% gross profit was added

and the total deemed sale value was worked out to

Rs.20,21,006/- and it was taxable at 4% and the tax

due was worked out as Rs.80,840/- and it is not known

how SC due was also worked out by the dealer-

respondent to an extent of Rs.12,126/-. So when the

dealer-respondent himself had admitted the liability

with reference to the steel that had been purchased in

his statement both before the revisional authority and

also before us, at the time of hearing it is not known

how the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had passed

order without taking into consideration the above

statement which had been admitted by the dealer-

respondent himself to an extent of Rs.35,00,132/-. If

the portion relating to Steel is deducted an amount of

Rs.14,79,126/- which had been assessed at the time of

_____________

Page No. 3 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.25600 of 2007

original assessment. So when the revision of

assessment was taken up by the revisional authority

consequent to the inspection that was conducted on

16.12.97, the dealer-respondent himself had estimated

the tax liability in respect of the Steel and had arrived

at the turnover and filed the statement before the

revisional authority which were not taken note of

either by the revisional authority nor by the Appellate

Assistant Commissioner. So