Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The details of the amounts involved in the present writ petition as follows: 

                            Sl.No.         Section                Particular            Tax Demanded
                                      7-C  of         the Denial of payment of Tax on    2,86,92,151
                                      TNGST          Act, compounding       rate   of
                                      1959                25,43,76,351.00
                               1                          Rs.10,63,46,942/-
                                      Rule 6-C (iii) of Demand on freight        and      6,39,61,82
                                      the     TNGST pumping          charges      of 5.00
                               2      Rules, 1959       Rs.1,02,33,892/-
                                      Section 7-F (3) Adjustment of TDS paid                 40,13,04
                                      & (4) of the by the clients of the 1.00
                                      TNGST      Act, Petitioner   to whom the
                                      1959            petitioner had    rendered
                               3                      work contract.

8. It is further submitted that the respondents erred in rejecting the petitioner 's claim for adjustment of tax paid by the recipient of works contract on an erroneous premise that the entire composition was only in respect of works contract involving supply of ReadyMix Concrete (RMC) overlooking the contract.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that the supply of RMC to various persons involved not only sale but also works contract within the meaning of Section 2 a of the TNGST Act, 1959 and therefore the petitioner opted to pay tax as the “compounding rate“ under Section 7C of the TNGST Act, 1959 which has been denied.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
15. The claim of the department on the issue is found to be factually and legally sustainable. The appellant did not engage and entertain themselves in the execution of any civil works contract'. They had, as records indicate, only supplied ready mix concrete to various parties who had themselves been carrying out the work of civil constructions. Supplies of materials to such parties engaged in the civil works at the rates fixed at per square metre basis or cubic metre basis but where the final settlement for the supplies of Ready Mix Concrete was made on actual quantity of Ready Mix Concrete used at site basis, at the rate pre-determined per cubic metre of Ready Mix Concrete, can TNGST Act and the appellants' claim for sales under Section 3(2) of the TNGST Act and the appellants' claim for sales under Section 7 C cannot operate. The activities of pumping, laying, curing etc., that would be normally carried out by the parties engaged in the civil construction works, even if awarded to the assessee to be executed, will not alter the basic character of the orders for supplies of Ready Mix Concrete are part and parcel of the orders for supplies of 'Ready Mix Concrete' as chattel, the incidental labour loses its significance in the claim of transactions and as a corollary the claim for works contract evaporates as per the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 119 STC 533 ( Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., ) 140 STC 22 (Kone Elevators India ) Ltd.
Therefore, the claim of the learned Departmental Representative was that the assessee not having engaged themselves in any agreement for the carrying out of any civil works' as defined in the TNGST Act, the assessing authority's taxing the turnover involved in this dispute under Section 7 C of the TNGST Act cannot be held to be in violation of what is available in the Statute.