9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and accordingly, the duty to the extent of 4% is maintained. When the amendment was not on the statute book for specifically providing duty/Tax on works contract, it cannot be said that duty chargeable would fall in the category of residuary item at the rate of 12.5%. The view taken by the Tribunal is that, whatever the items are utilized in execution of the works contract will have to be considered separately for the purpose of chargeability. Of course, the benefit is already gr anted for the Iron and Steel by the First Appellate Authority to the extent of 32.5% of the total amount of the purchase. For the cement, the Tribunal had found that it would be 12.5%, whereas, for jelly, it would be 4% and for bitumen, it would be 4%. The view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period of 2005 and 2006 as the amendment was not been in force, the duty will be payable as per the Schedule for the respective item even it is utilized in the works contract. It is the submission of the Government Advocate that the Tribunal has committed an error. Hence, this Court may consider the same i n these matters. 4. We may record that, various questions are raised in the petitions being questions of law, only the question which may arise for consideration is, as to whether the amendment made by item No.4/2006 will have the effect prospective or retrospective. 5. At this stage, we may usefully refer the decision of this Court in the case of Durga Projects Inc., Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax. Neither Section 3 nor Section 4 of the Act seeks or intend to levy or prescribe different rate of tax for the goods involved in the normal sale and for the goods involved in the deemed sale. Both normal sale as well as the deemed sale should be treated as one and the same with respect to levy of tax on sale of goods. The Commissioner opined that the rate of tax is on the value of goods involved in the execution of works contract and not on separate value of each goods. Thus even when there is no schedule of works contract under the Act prescribing the rate of tax on different type of contract, the tax liability exists upto 31.3.2006. It falls under Section 4(1)(b). Hence, levy of tax has to be under Section 4(1)(b). The finding of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The property in the goods used in the work contract will be deemed to have been passed over to the buyer as soon as the goods or material used are incorporated to the moveable property by principle of accretion to the moveable property. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the Commissioner is contrary to law. For the period prior to 1.4.2006, tax has to be levied as per Section 3(1) of the Act and for the period subsequent to 1.4.2006, tax has to be levied as per Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the substantial questions of law are held in favour of the appellant. 6. If the facts of the present case are further examined, the Tribunal in the impugned order has considered that the amendment has come into effect from 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
