9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it is necessary to notice the facts in TREVC. No. 92 of 2011 (the background facts in the other revision are almost the same). The petitioner is an incorporated entity engaged in execution of the works contract. They are registered on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad (CTO), for the assessment year 2000-01. The CTO completed assessment on February 28, 2002. The taxable turnover was computed under section 5G of the Act at Rs. 90,71,616. The petitioner contended that tax has to be computed under section 5F of the Act, which was not accepted. Assailing the assessment order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed on December 27, 2002 relying on the decision of this court in Media Communications v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1997] 105 STC 227 (AP) and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Mycon Construction Limited v. State of Karnataka [1998] 111 STC 322 (Karn). The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad, in exercise of powers under section 20(2) of the Act proposed to revise the appellate order on the ground that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g out the building construction, manufacture, processing, fabrication, erection, installation, etc. It is a deemed sale under Explanation VI to section 2(n) of the Act. The said Explanation was added by A. P. Act No. 18 of 1985 with effect from July 1, 1985 after the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982, which included the transfer of property of the goods involved in the works contract in the definition of "sale". A works contract, therefore, is chargeable under section 5 (charging section) of the Act read with Explanation IV to section 2(n) and 2(t) of the Act. There are two methods of computing the tax on goods involved in the works contract. The first method is stipulated in section 5F of the Act and rule 6(2) or rule 6(3) (as the case may be) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 ("the Rules", for brevity). In this method, a dealer engaged in the business of works contract shall pay tax at eight per cent on his turnover of transferred property in the goods, whether as goods or in some other form involved in the execution of the works contract. The second method of computing the tax on goods involved in the works contract is provided under section 5G of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 6B. Composition of tax in the case of dealers executing works, contracts:- (1) The dealer who elects to compound the tax for any year under section 5G shall submit an application in form L to the assessing authority each year, within thirty days from the date of commencement of the year or within thirty days from the date of commencement of the business if he commences the business during the course of the year, as the case may be:- Provided that the assessing authority having jurisdiction may on sufficient cause and for reasons to be recorded in writing condone the delay in respect of an application received after expiry of thirty days from commencement of the year or after the expiry of thirty days from the date of commencement of business as the case may be. However, the delay condoned shall not exceed sixty days and delay shall be condoned within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of such year or the business, as the case may be. (2)(i) The assessing au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 5F of the Act, shall be bound by the certificate in form L for the entire year. When once a dealer, opts for composition under section 5G of the Act read with rule 6B of the Rules and obtains such permission in Form L1, it cannot be varied nor the dealer can be resiled from the same on the ground that computation is more advantageous to him under section 5F of the Act during the currency of the permission in form L1. In Venus Castings (P) Ltd. [2004] 4 SCC 206 ; AIR 2000 SC 1568, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether a manufacturer, who exercised option to make payment of duty by composition under rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, can revert to the regular method of determining the duty. Therein, the manufacturer was engaged in making metal castings and as per the option exercised under rule 96Z(3), the excise has to be paid based on the total furnace capacity installeOd in his factory. Having availed of the procedure for payment of duty by composition, the manufacturer claimed benefit under section 3A(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which enabled the Central Government to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
