Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (2) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pugned orders is similar; the variation is only qua the amounts referred to in the said orders. 3. For the purpose of adjudicating these writ petitions, the following, broad facts, are required to be noticed : 3.1. The petitioner herein is a Company, which entered into an agreement, apparently, with another entity by the name : M/s.Nagarjuna Oil Company Limited [in short NOCL ]. This agreement was executed on 26.05.2010 and is titled as "Terminalling Service Agreement" [in short the agreement ]. By virtue of the said agreement, the petitioner, was required to build storage terminals for the benefit of NOCL. Admittedly, the land, on which, the terminal was required to be constructed, was owned by NOCL. 3.2. Broadly, the agreement required .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... charges to the petitioner, in terms of Article 7 of the agreement. 4. The record also shows that the construction of the terminal has been sub-contracted by the petitioner to an entity by the name : M/s.ABIR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [in short ABIR ], which is registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [in short the Act ]. 5. Based on the aforesaid broad facts, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the agreement is in the nature of Build Own Operate and Transfer contract (in short a BOOT Contract ) and not a works contract, as has been sought to be portrayed by the first respondent. 5.1. The petitioner also contends that by virtue of provisions of Rule 8(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 (in sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... act works. 4. The dealers have purchased goods locally for which they have claimed ITC on the purchases. But they have not reported the disposal of goods in the return. The transfer of goods might have been reported in the return. Thus the Terminalling Service Agreement is defected (SIC). 5. These are all the normal conditions for contract agreements. But there is violations of provision of TNVAT Act 2006. 6. The dealers are works contractor according to our records. 7. The Section 5 of the Act is extracted in this para. There is transfer of property in goods during the assessment year. 8. There is transfer of property in goods. But the dealers have not reported the deemed sale value of goods. They have extracted the Sec.2[43] the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the subject agreement is not in the nature of a works contract. This apart, Mr.Annamalai says, that the matter involves determination of disputed facts and therefore, the petitioner should be relegated to an alternate remedy by way of an appeal. 6.2. Insofar as the issue raised by the petitioner, with regard to adjustment of the payments made to ABIR under Rule 8(5)(c) of the 2007 Rules is concerned, Mr.Annamalai says, even this aspect can be dealt by the appellate authority. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner indicates to me, that the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the instant writ petitions, after the appeal period was over, and therefore, there may be difficulty in approaching the appellate authority. Furtherm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ime was spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petitions in this court would have to be taken into account, if, appeal(s) are preferred by the petitioner, vis-a-vis, the impugned orders. In this regard, the petitioner can have recourse to, if not Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 1963 Act), surely, to the principles analogous to the said provision. 10.2. That Section 14 of the 1963 Act, applies to quasi judicial authorities is now settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P.Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015 (5) Scale 505. In so far as the proposition set forth above, with regard to the application of principles analogous to Section 14 of the 1963 Act is concerned, the judgment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates