9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 344 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of appeal - Availability of alternative remedy - rejection of returns filed by the assessee - interstate sales - Contract amounted to a turn-key job or not - composite works contract - HELD THAT - Undisputed facts of the case are, Purchase orders are placed by the purchasers of Elevators with the assessee's unit situated at Thane in Maharashtra. The Hon'ble Single Judge has held that the documentary evidence viz. specimen copy of the Purchase Order, supporting transporter challans, delivery documents and the tax invoices reflected that the goods were manufactured in Maharashtra and movement of goods had occasioned from Maharashtra to Karnataka pursuant to the Purchase Order. It is further held by the Hon'ble Single Judge that it is discernable that supply of Elevators from the manufacturing unit at Thane in Maharashtra falls within the ambit of Section 3(a) of the CST Act. It is not in dispute that the decision in STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VERSUS ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2004 (11) TMI 518 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , has been accepted by the Revenue. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has taken over ECE Industries Ltd. Therefore, Revenue is bound by the said decision. Maintainability of appeal - Availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Single Judge has exercised her discretion and entertained the petition. The matter being fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in ECE Industries Ltd., the said ground in the facts of this case is untenable. There are no legal infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
Appeal against reassessment order under KVAT Act for the assessment period from April 2010 to March 2011. Analysis: The appeals by the Revenue were filed against the order dated June 13, 2019, in W.P. No.14211/2018 c/w. W.P. No.25464/2018 and the order dated April 24, 2018, in W.Ps. No. 13607/2017 & 14081-14091/2017. The common issue in these appeals was the challenge to the reassessment order dated February 28, 2017, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, regarding the classification of transactions as 'works contract' excisable to tax under the KVAT Act. The assessee, engaged in supply, erection, and commissioning of lifts and elevators, entered into agreements split into supply of elevator and spare parts and installation. The ACCT rejected the returns filed by the assessee, leading to the dispute. The Revenue contended that the transactions were composite 'works contracts' and could not be split, citing legal precedents. The Senior Advocate for the assessee argued that the matter was covered by a previous decision of the court and that the levy of tax was without legal authority. The court analyzed the facts, including the movement of goods from one state to another, and referred to legal provisions and previous judgments to conclude that there was no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The court considered the undisputed facts, including the movement of goods from Maharashtra to Karnataka, and the applicability of Section 3(a) of the CST Act. Referring to the decision in ECE Industries Ltd., the court held that the principles for determining inter-State trade or commerce applied to the transfer of property in works contracts. It noted that the decision in ECE Industries Ltd. had been accepted by the Revenue and that the assessee had taken over ECE Industries Ltd., making the Revenue bound by the decision. The court also addressed the issue of alternative remedy, stating that the matter being covered by a Division Bench decision, the ground for an alternative remedy was untenable in this case. Consequently, the court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeals. In another appeal, the Revenue challenged reassessment orders for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The court, based on the analysis and conclusion in the previous appeal, found no grounds for interference in this case as well, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
