Skip to content


Appasamy and Sons Vs. the State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revision Cases Nos. 167 and 168 of 1956
Judge
Reported in[1959]10STC170(Mad)
AppellantAppasamy and Sons
RespondentThe State of Madras
Appellant AdvocateG.N. Chary, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThe Additional Government Pleader
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredState of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley
Excerpt:
- .....1951-52, and rs. 1,12,147-14-6 for 1952-53. the tribunal treated the amounts as the turnover of works contracts executed by the assessee, and held that 70 per cent of the turnover was liable to be taxed. the amounts in question represented the charges collected by the assessee for carrying out embroidery work on the material supplied to the assessee by its customers. such contracts did not involve the sale of any goods of the assessee to the customers. the principles on which the question has to be decided, whether there was any element of sale in a given works contract, have been explained by us in our judgment in t.r.c. nos. 233 to 236 of 19561, on the application of the principles laid down by the supreme court in state of madras v. gannon dunkerley2.2. the assessments are set.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The turnover, the liability of which to sales tax was in dispute, was Rs. 36,020-10-0 for 1951-52, and Rs. 1,12,147-14-6 for 1952-53. The Tribunal treated the amounts as the turnover of works contracts executed by the assessee, and held that 70 per cent of the turnover was liable to be taxed. The amounts in question represented the charges collected by the assessee for carrying out embroidery work on the material supplied to the assessee by its customers. Such contracts did not involve the sale of any goods of the assessee to the customers. The principles on which the question has to be decided, whether there was any element of sale in a given works contract, have been explained by us in our judgment in T.R.C. Nos. 233 to 236 of 19561, on the application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2.

2. The assessments are set aside, and the petitions are allowed with costs in T.R.C. No. 167 of 1956. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //