2023 (10) TMI 722 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non-grant of exemption to the petitioner by the respondent - cement and steel used by the petitioner are supplied by the establishment for which they were carrying out the contract - taking the goods from another site - Neither sale nor transfer of property - HELD THAT - There is a consistent and concurrent finding of fact by the two forums below. First, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) in the course of deciding the revision and secondly by the Tribunal while deciding the Tax Appeal. Moreover, during the course of hearing of the instant Tax Revision Case also the petitioner was not in a position to bring before this Court any cogent material to dispute or disprove the concurrent finding, except for the oral submissions made so far as the petitioner receiving the cement and steel would amount to second sale or prove the contention that the product received by the petitioner had already suffered tax at the hands of the contractee. The Tax Revision Case thus being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of non-granting of exemption to the petitioner by the respondent, specifically regarding the transactions involving goods supplied by contractees M/s. Magunta Acqua Farms Ltd and M/s. SHAR, Sriharikota, for construction works.

Summary:
The petitioner, a Works Contractor, challenged the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal affirming the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner claimed exemption on certain turnovers, including the value of goods brought from other sites and used in works, and goods supplied by the contractees. The main contention was that the goods received were not subject to tax earlier and should not be taxed as deemed sales. The petitioner argued that as the goods were supplied by the contractees, they should be considered the first purchasers, and thus, liable to pay tax. However, the respondent contended that the goods supplied were always for the petitioner's use, and the value of goods was deducted from the total bills. The Tribunal found that the goods did not suffer tax and held the petitioner liable to pay tax. The judgment highlighted the legislative intent of single-point taxation and the measure for levy of tax on goods involved in works contracts. The court dismissed the Tax Revision Case, as the petitioner failed to provide evidence to dispute the findings of the lower authorities, concluding that the case lacked merit.

In conclusion, the Tax Revision Case was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and any pending petitions were closed.