9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1497 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPurchase of goods for use in works contract from other state - interstate movement of goods against Form-C - Denial of exemption claim - Notification dated 28.04.1993 - Held that - Assessee is a contractor and carrying on the constructions works and he purchased the goods in the course of inter-State trade, the CST would be payable in the appropriate State, i.e. U.P. wherefrom the movement of the goods commenced and for this reason, the contractor was not liable to pay any tax under the provisions of the RST Act, 1994 and the State of Rajasthan could not ask the contractor to pay tax under the provisions RST Act on such inter- State purchases of the Contractor. Therefore, it could not be treated as violation of the condition No. 4 of the Notification dated 28.04.1993. - Court finds no force in the present revision petition filed on behalf of the Revenue and the same is liable to be dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed in the case of CTO Vs. M/s Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd., while upholding the orders of the Deputy Commissioners (Appeals) and of the learned Tax Board. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of Condition No. 4 of a notification under the RST Act regarding the use of declaration forms for purchasing goods in works contracts. Analysis: The High Court of Rajasthan dealt with a revision petition filed by the Revenue against an order dismissing their appeal. The issue revolved around the correct interpretation of Condition No. 4 of a notification under the RST Act, specifically regarding the use of declaration forms for purchasing goods in works contracts. The learned Tax Board upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing that the prohibition in Condition No. 4 applied only to purchases made within the State under the RST Act. The court referred to a similar case decided by a co-ordinate Bench in Jaipur for guidance. In the referenced case, the Single Judge analyzed the notification and Section 4(2) of the RST Act to determine that the notification was issued under the RST Act and not the CST Act. The judge concluded that the prohibition in Condition No. 4 was limited to purchases within the State under the RST Act and did not extend to inter-State trade under the CST Act. Therefore, the assessing officer erred in levying additional tax on goods purchased against Form 'C' under the CST Act. The court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, dismissing the revision petition of the Revenue. The respondent's counsel supported the impugned orders, citing the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in Jaipur. The High Court agreed with the co-ordinate Bench's view, noting that the use of declaration forms under Condition No. 4 did not restrict forms issued under the CST Act. Additionally, the court highlighted that the State Legislature lacked the authority to impose additional tax on inter-State purchases made against 'C' Form. The court found no merit in the Revenue's petition and upheld the orders of the Deputy Commissioners (Appeals) and the Tax Board. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that the notification under the RST Act did not apply to inter-State purchases under the CST Act. The court's decision aligned with the interpretation provided by the co-ordinate Bench in Jaipur, emphasizing the limited scope of Condition No. 4 in the notification.
|
