2015 (12) TMI 236 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rejection of an application under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - they applied for issuance of the certificate, which would certify that the contract under reference is not a works contract and therefore no deduction of taxes at source is called for from the payment - Held that - Impugned order fails to make any reference to the transaction and the contract, the terms and conditions thereof and whether the petitioner could be said to be executing any works under the works contract agreement as claimed by it. The only reason which has been assigned in the conclusion is that the agreement dated April 2, 2004 is a works contract. In other words, it involves works contract. However, for the purposes of recording a conclusion of this nature, it was necessary and imperative for the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, to have referred to not only the agreement dated April 2, 2014, but other agreements under which the works have been sub-contracted. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of application under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (the Act); Vires of section 31 of the Act; Interpretation of agreements in relation to works contract; Failure to consider application details in the impugned order.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company awarded a contract and having sub-contracted the work, challenged the rejection of their application under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. They contested the vires of section 31 of the Act, which was not addressed in the judgment. The petitioner referred to various agreements, including the works contract agreement and the sub-contract agreement. They claimed that the works contract was assigned to two subcontractors with permission from the fourth respondent, involving no transfer of property in goods to the fourth respondent. The petitioner sought a certificate to exempt tax deduction at source, which was rejected in the impugned order dated August 21, 2014, leading to this writ petition.

The court noted that the impugned order failed to consider the transaction details, terms of the contract, and whether the petitioner was executing any works under the works contract agreement. The order merely concluded that the agreement dated April 2, 2014, was a works contract without a comprehensive examination of the petitioner's claims. The court directed the Commissioner to reexamine the matter, offering the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, and to pass a fresh order within four weeks. The court accepted the undertaking by the Government Pleader and quashed the impugned order, remitting the application for further scrutiny. All contentions regarding the validity of the section and the application were kept open for future proceedings, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.