SINETECH Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. A. R. Jayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Ganesan, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent and perused the records.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner challenges the notice dated 13. 7. 2007 for the revised assessment issued under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 [for short, 'tngst Act'].

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. A. R. Jayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that for the assessment year 2004-2005, the petitioner had exercised the option of paying the tax at compounding rate as required under Section 7-C of the TNGST Act by filing the return in Form A-1 and once compounding option was accepted by the Department, a compounding order was also passed to that effect. Therefore, the transactions of the petitioner will not come under the category of "works contract" thereby the respondent to assume jurisdiction to revise the assessment and levy tax on the transaction as ordinary sale by invoking the provisions of Section 16 of the TNGST Act does not arise. The reliance placed by the respondent on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 140 STC 22 [state of A. P. v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd. ] is not attracted. On the contrary, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 103 STC 95 [state of Tamil Nadu v. Devendran and Co. ] confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in (1981) 47 STC 264 (Madras) will squarely apply.