ORDER R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. - Counsel contends that the words in article 366(29-A) of the Constitution "whether as goods or in some other form" which are found in parenthesis in article 366(29-A), sub-clause (b) which reads : "a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract" - should be understood to mean, the goods which change their form into other goods, and are used in the changed form in carrying out a works contract, and therefore the provision in section 3-B(2)(b) of the TNGST Act which reads "all amounts for which any goods, specified in the First Schedule or Second Schedule, are purchased from registered dealers liable to pay tax under this Act and used in the execution of works contract in the same form in which such goods were purchased", is inconsistent with article 366(29-A) and therefore the allegedly offending words in section 3-B(2)(b) of the Act should be struck down. Sub-section (2) to section 3-B of the State Act provides for the deduction to be made from the total turnover of the dealer who is engaged in execution of the works contract, to arrive at the taxable turnover. Sub-clause (b) limits the amount of such deduction to the amounts for which the goods specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule have been purchased from registered dealers liable to pay tax under the Act, subject to the condition that the goods so purchased are used in the execution of works contract in the same form in which such goods are purchased. Counsel submitted that the reason for the reference to or in other form found in article 366(29-A) was to bring to tax items which otherwise would have gone untaxed, for example, paint and other items utilised in the making of a painting which would go untaxed as the work of executing the painting itself would not be liable to tax on the goods such as paint and other ingredients having become a part of painting. The further submission of counsel was that the logical corollary of that approach to taxation would be that the change in the form of goods, even when the changed form is taxable under a separate head, should not result in an additional burden to the dealer who is engaged in the works contract, as the denial of any deduction on the ground that the goods used by him in execution of the work are not the very same goods which he had purchased from the registered dealers liable to pay tax, would be unjust. In other words, the submission is that if what is bought by the dealer engaged in works contract is subjected to change in the form and thereafter used in the works contract, such change in the form should be ignored and what had been bought must be regarded as the item which is made a part of the works contract by reason of the words in the parenthesis under article 366(29-A). Counsel places great reliance upon a decision reported by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Media Communications v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1997] 105 STC 227 the relevant part of which is found at pages 242 and 243. The court there was concerned with the challenge to the validity of part of section 5F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which referred to transfer of property in goods whether as goods or in some other form. The court referred to the definition of "goods" in section 2(h) of that Act as also explanation VI to definition of "sale". Reading the two definitions together the court concluded that "it cannot be disputed that any transformation of the goods from one form to another in the execution of the contract, will not amount to the creation of a different or distinct commercial commodity exigible to tax once again". The court then held that the words "in the same form" go beyond the charging section in the main part of section 5F and that would offend the provisions of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act also. With respect, we are unable to subscribe the reasoning of the court in the aforementioned decision. The court then held that the words "in the same form" go beyond the charging section in the main part of section 5F and that would offend the provisions of section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act also. With respect, we are unable to subscribe the reasoning of the court in the aforementioned decision. The plea that section 3-B(2)(b) was inconsistent with article 366(29-A) was considered by this Court even before that decision was rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Tamil Nadu Mosaic Manufacturers Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [1995] 97 STC 503. The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court does not make any reference to the judgment of this Court. In the case of Tamil Nadu Mosaic Manufacturers Association [1995] 97 STC 503, the questions considered by the Court were set out in paragraph 6 of the judgment. The first question set out therein reads as under : "Whether the condition prescribed by sub-section (2)(b) of section 3-B that in order to claim deduction from the total turnover in respect of the amounts for which the goods specified in the First Schedule or Second Schedule are purchased, such goods must be used in the execution of works contract in the same form in which the said goods were purchased, will result in levying tax at more than one stage violating the mandate contained in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and article 286(3) of the Constitution and on that ground whether section 3-B of the Act is liable to be struck down ?" The other questions formulated therein examined other facts of some arguments on the unconstitutionality of section 3-B(2)(b). After elaborately considering the matter with reference to the statutory provisions as also the decision of the apex Court and the provisions of the Constitution, the court concluded thus : "we see no infirmity in sub-section (2)(b) of section 3-B which says that in computing the taxable turnover of a dealer of transfer of property involved in the execution of works contract he is entitled to deduct all the amounts for which any goods specified in the First or Second Schedule are purchased from registered dealers and used in the execution of works contract in the same form in which such goods were purchased. If the goods purchased by a dealer is a distinct commercial commodity falling under a particular sub-item of section 14 such commodity should be used in the execution of the works contract either in the form in which such goods were purchased or in some other form falling under the very same sub-item of section 14 as the goods purchased, to enable the dealer to get deduction from the total turnover under section 3-B(2)(b)." We are in complete agreement with what has been stated by the court in that case. The court therein specifically rejected the arguments that notwithstanding the change in the form of the goods, the changed form in itself being a taxable commercial commodity under a different head, such change should be ignored and the deduction allowed to be claimed by regarding the goods which had been bought by the dealer executing the works contract as the goods used in carrying out the works contract. Article 366(29-A) was not enacted to confer larger benefits on the persons engaged in carrying out works contract who transferred the properties and the goods used in such contract to the other party to the contract. If a person who is engaged for example in the manufacture of rolling shutters, buys iron and steel for the purpose of manufacture, after paying tax on such purchase, he cannot contend while selling the shutters that no tax should be levied on the shutters as they have been manufactured from iron and steel on which he has already paid tax. The iron and shutters are commercially distinct commodities and are charged to tax accordingly. That position will not change merely because the person who buys the iron or steel, after making the rolling shutter, chooses to transfer the property in the form of shutter to a person who may want to use it in the home or as an attachment to the building. The goods and the property in which it is transferred in such a case remains the property in shutter and not in the iron which had been bought for the purpose of manufacture of shutter. The tax that may have been paid on the purchase of iron or steel to manufacture shutter cannot be regarded as tax that would be payable on the shutter as well. The tax that may have been paid on the purchase of iron or steel to manufacture shutter cannot be regarded as tax that would be payable on the shutter as well. The very illustration the counsel gave about making a painting itself demonstrates effectively in the intent of the Parliament in effecting the amendment. The object of the amendment was to bring into the tax net the items, which otherwise could not have been brought to tax, and it is not meant to be a sieve through which goods liable to be taxed are allowed to escape tax. The change in the form referred to in article 366(29-A) of the Constitution is not change in the form of the goods to other commercially distinct and taxable goods. The change of form referred to therein, is the change of goods into another form which by itself would not have been taxable but for the use of that expression in article 366(29-A). We, therefore, do not find any substance in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.