9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the petitioner is entitled to claim reduction of tax paid on purchase of cement in excess of 4 per cent from the tax payable by it on execution of works contract as provided under G.O. Ms. No. 187 dated April 3, 2000 for the period from April 3, 2000 to October 31, 2000. 2.. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the business of executing works contracts, civil as well as steel structurals. For the assessment year 2000-2001 the petitioner executed certain civil works for NTPC at Parwada, Visakhapatnam District and other sites in Andhra Prad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the works contract executed by it in a sum of Rs. 26,77,673 at the time of final assessment. According to the petitioner, the Government issued G.O. No. 739 dated October 17, 2000 (published in the Gazette on November 1, 2000) superseding G.O. Ms. No. 187 along with G.O. Ms. No. 58 in the process of modifying the scheme of purchasing of goods against form-G under section 5-B. Though the said G.O., which is made effective from January 1, 2000 the Government removed cement from the list of ineligible goods and enabled the purchase of cement by manufacturers and processors of goods against from-G incurring sales tax at 4 per cent only. According to the petitioner in view of G.O. Ms. No. 739 dated October 17, 2000 retrospectively suspendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while enacting subordinate legislation can withdraw the benefits retrospectively fell for consideration before us in W.P. No. 30752 of 1997 and batch and by order dated November 20, 2001 (Ganduri Eswaraiah v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [2002] 125 STC 406) in the above writ petitions we held that the executive lacks the said power of withdrawing the benefits retrospectively. However, we also held that the benefits could be withdrawn prospectively. Following the said view, we hold that withdrawal of benefits available to the petitioner pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 187 dated April 3, 2000 for the period from April 3, 2000 to October 31, 2000 consequent upon G.O. Ms. No. 739 dated October 17, 2000 is without competence and declare that such pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
