Judgment :- N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dated 8.7.98 in T.C.No.17/85 (T.C.(R) No.6/97). 2. The assessment year involved is 1980-81. The first respondent is a dealer. The dispute that arose during the course of the assessment proceedings, before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour I Assessment Circle was regarding the taxability of the turnover of the first respondent representing the sale of letter heads, ledgers, bill books, etc. According to the Assessing Officer, the sale of the said articles from 1.4.1980 to 2.7.1980 should be taxed at the multipoint rate at 4%, and the sale from 3.7.1980 to 31.3.1981 should be taxed at 8%, applying Entry 144 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to Act. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee was that the entire transaction was not liable to be taxed, as the transaction arose from the works contract, and there was no sale at all. The plea of the assessee that it was a work contract was rejected by the Assessing Officer, and consequently, the Officer assessed tax on the sales turnover of the articles mentioned above in the manner indicated in the order of assessment. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) I, Madras City. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the points raised by the assessee and found that the turnover relating to the sale of the bill books, etc., did not arise from works contract, but arose from the sale of the articles. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee's transaction did not amount to works contract. He also upheld the levy of multipoint rate of tax at 4% up to 2.7.1980 and thereafter at the rate of 8% for single point tax on for the period from 3.7.1980 to 31.3.1981. 3. The assessee carried the matter on appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Main Bench, Madras. The assessee raised two objections before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The first contention raised was that the transaction in question was not sale, but it was a works contract, and the second contention was that the turnover was not liable to be taxed at 8% under Entry 144 of the First Schedule to the Act. The assessee raised two objections before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The first contention raised was that the transaction in question was not sale, but it was a works contract, and the second contention was that the turnover was not liable to be taxed at 8% under Entry 144 of the First Schedule to the Act. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the first contention urged on behalf of the assessee and held that the transaction was only a supply contract and not works contract, and since the transactions were supply, they would attract the levy of tax under the provisions of the Act. However, as regards the rate of tax, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the turnover was liable to be taxed only at the multipoint rate on the sale of articles, and the Entry 144 of the First Schedule was not applicable to the sale of the articles in question. Thus, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated 25.5.1984 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and directed that on the disputed turnover, the tax should be levied at the rate of 4%. As against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.5.1984, the Revenue preferred a Tax Case (Revision) Petition before this Court under S.38(1) of the Act, as at that time the revision was maintainable. As far as the point that was decided against the assessee viz. that the transaction was not a works contract is concerned, the assessee has not preferred any revision, and that part of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which went against the assessee has become final. After the constitution of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, the Tax Case (Revision) Petition filed by the Revenue and pending on the file of this Court was transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal following its order in Damayanthi Press Case, held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption on the ground that the transaction in question was a works contract and not a sale. The Special Tribunal thus dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. We have heard Mr.T.Ayyasamy, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) and Mr.R.Senniappan, learned Counsel for the first respondent. 5. The Special Tribunal thus dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. We have heard Mr.T.Ayyasamy, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) and Mr.R.Senniappan, learned Counsel for the first respondent. 5. We are of the opinion that the Special Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and decided the question, that the transaction in question was not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on the ground that it was a works contract. It is ex facie clear that the assessee has not challenged that part of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was adverse to the assessee, holding that the transaction in question was not a works contract, but a supply contract, and it would attract the levy of sales tax under the Act. The assessee has not challenged that part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal in a manner known to law or in a manner permitted by law. Hence, that part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal rendered in the year 1984 against the assessee has become final. Hence, it is not open to the assessee to urge and raise the same point before the Special Tribunal in the revision preferred by the Revenue challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the rate of tax. As we have already seen, the assessee has not preferred any revision against that part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, and since that part of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal has become final and the assessee has not filed any revision, we are of the view that the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question whether the transaction in question was a works contract or not. Therefore, the Special Tribunal was not correct in law in exceeding the scope of the appeal that was before it. The scope of the appeal before the Special Tribunal was limited to the question regarding the applicability of the rate of tax only. We are of the view that the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the turnover was liable to be taxed at all as a work contract. The scope of the appeal before the Special Tribunal was limited to the question regarding the applicability of the rate of tax only. We are of the view that the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the turnover was liable to be taxed at all as a work contract. The Special Tribunal was not correct in law in following the decision rendered in DAMAYANTHI PRESS CASE, (a case on works contract) to hold that the assessee is not liable to be taxed. 6. Consequently, we hold that the order of the Special Tribunal is not legally sustainable, and accordingly it is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Special Tribunal, and the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal is directed to consider the question regarding the rate of tax after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed. Rule Nisi is made absolute. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.