RELIANCE GENERATORS PVT LTD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of writs of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in its proceedings in TNGS T Nos. 1480991/2001-02 and 1480991/2002-03 respectively dated 30/12/2005 and to quash the same.

(2.) IN these two writ petitions, the pre-revision show cause notices issued by the respondent have been challenged. The impugned notice in W. P. No. 5293 of 2006 reads as follows:- "the dealers are engaged in the supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Diesel Generators to BSNL for its various telephone exchanges. IN this kind of transaction the Generators are supplied as standard unit and the wires and other ancilliaries are not part of the generating sets. They are therefore, to be treated as sale only and not works contract as installation, testing and commissioning are only incidental. IN the case law reported in 2005 (3) S. C.C. 389, the Supreme Court of india had held that the material consumed in producing the lift to be delivered and skill and labour employed for converting the main components into the end product was incidentally used and therefore, the delivery of the end product by the assessee to the customer constituted a sale and not works contract. The transactions of the dealers are similar to the case law reported above. Thus their transactions only a contract of sale to the customers and not to be treated as works contract. IN as much the said transactions are to be treated as sale, it is proposed to revise the assessment of the dealers under Section 16 (1) and assess the turnover of Rs. 1 ,47,08,860 /- @ 16% as first sales of generator. " The impugned notice in W. P. No. 5294 of 2006 also contains the same averments.

(3.) THEREFORE, it is clear that the respondent herein has clearly stated the grounds on which he proposes to pass the revised assessment, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the notices are vague. The question to be decided by the respondent herein is whether the transaction in question is works contract or a case of sale. It is open to the petitioner herein to submit its detailed objections and establish its case. The facts of this case and the facts of the case in Nasir Ahmad's case are totally different. THEREFORE, the ratio laid down by the Apex in Nasir Ahmad's case is not applicable to the facts of this case.