9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o liability for payment of tax in respect thereof. However, the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, by his assessment order dated August 27, 2001 held otherwise on the basis of rule 14(1)(c) of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993. Dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 98,12,479 was not shown by the petitioner in its annual return as the same was in respect of the sub-contracts, such contention on behalf of the petitioner was repelled by the assessment order dated August 27, 2001 holding that as per the provisions of rule 14 of the Rules of 1993, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax on such sub-contract. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the revisional authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and rule 14(1)(c) of the Rules, submits that as per the said provisions, the petitioner is liable to pay tax and the assessing authority rightly passed the impugned order dated August 27, 2001 affirmed by both the revisional and the appellate authority. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. Section 2(9) of the Act defines "contractors", which means any person executing a works contract and includes a sub-contractor. Rule 14(1)(c) of the Rules reads as follows: "14. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 2(34)(a) and section 8(3) in determining the taxable turnover of a works contract the amounts specified in the following clauses shall be deducted from the gross turnov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the land on which the building is constructed, when the goods or materials used are incorporated in the building. . ." In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the apex court noticing the fact that the Department had amended rule 17 of the A.P. VAT Rules, 2005 observed that the position had been clarified vide rule 17(1)(c) (as amended). Such clarification was to the effect that where a VAT dealer awards any part of the contract to a registered sub-contractor, no tax shall be payable on the consideration paid for the sub-contract. In DLF Industries Limited [2000] 120 STC 569 (P&H), the challenge was to the proviso to section 6(1) of the particular Act. Section 6 dealing with incidence of taxation provided as follows (at page 576 of STC): "Prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong in passing the impugned orders. In paragraph 16 of the decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2008] 17 VST 1; [2008] 9 SCC 191, the apex court observed thus (at page 12 of VST): "16. . . . By virtue of article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution once the work is assigned by the contractor (L&T), the only transfer of property in goods is by the sub-contractor(s) who is a registered dealer in this case and who claims to have paid taxes under the Act on the goods involved in the execution of the works. Once the work is assigned by L&T to its sub-contractor(s), L&T ceases to execute the works contract in the sense contemplated by article 366(29A)(b) because property passes by accretion and there is no property in goods with the contractor which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
