Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Tvl.Bharat Offset vs The Tamil Nadu Taxation on 5 April, 2010

M/S.M.R.S.Plastic Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 October, 2012

12. Going by the discussion in the judgment reported in 34 VST 342 (Tvl.Bharat Offset and others Vs. The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal), which considered the various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court and other High Courts, we do not have any hesitation in following the said decision and in rejecting the assessee's tax case revision.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

M/S. Artisan Company Printers vs The Registrar on 23 November, 2021

In the Judgement referred to above, we find that the court, be it this court or the Supreme Court, had examined the contract in question and considered whether it was charged or whether it was a pure sale, and whether the sale of materials was incidental to the works component or whether the works component was incidental to the sale. Therefore, works contracts or whether it is a sale, the original authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal are bound to examine the contract and the terms and conditions contained therein. Merely because in one case it has been held that the printing order that has been undertaken was a works contract will not automatically mean that any contract where printed materials are supplied, even if they bear the name of purchaser, will without any question be deemed to be works contract....
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tvl.National Power Press vs The Special Committee on 5 April, 2011

3. Hence, the impugned orders of the first respondent, dated 6.12.2010, are set aside. It would be open to the petitioner to place all the relevant documents and to raise all the issues open to him, as per law, before the second respondent assessing authority, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submission of the relevant documents, and on the raising of the objections by the petitioner, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, revising the earlier orders of assessment, in respect of the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2004-2005, on merits and in accordance with law, and in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the decision in BHARAT OFFSET AND OTHERS Vs. TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER (2010) 34 VST 342 (MAD), within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

M/S.Colourline vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 12 March, 2024

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the issue raised in the present writ petition is decided against the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Offset and others v. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and another, reported in [2010] 34 VST 342 (Mad). To decide whether the contract in question is a works contract or if it is only a sale, the transactions will have to be examined on merits on the basis of the terms of the __________ Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1848 of 2006 contract.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document
1