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

2018 (12) TMI 1356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding that, since the total amount received or receivable by a dealer would include the tax levied on the total consideration, they were justified in levying tax on the total amount received or receivable which includes the tax component also. Since the tax which can be levied under Section 4(7)(b) of the Act is on the total amount received or receivable by the dealer towards execution of the works contract, it is only on the total value of the works contract executed by the dealer, could tax have been levied. The matter is remanded to the assessing authority who shall, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, examine whether VAT was levied on the VAT component of the total amount received or receivable by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as published in the A.P. Gazette only on 20.04.2012, the increase in the rate of tax from 4% to 5% was applied retrospectively from 14.09.2011, adversely affecting the petitioner s vested rights; and (3) since the assessing authority could only have levied tax on the value of the goods involved in the execution of the works contract, the words total amount received or receivable , used in Section 4(7)(b), cannot be so construed as to enable the assessing authority to levy tax on the tax component of the sale consideration. On the other hand Sri J.Anil Kumar, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that the rate of tax, specified in Section 4(7)(b) of the Act, was increased from 4% to 5% by Andhra Pradesh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012)48 VST 231(AP) , following the law declared by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Customs v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd. (2004)4 SCC 206 , held that, once a dealer opts for composition under the scheme, he cannot resile therefrom on the ground that it is more beneficial for him to revert back to the procedure of assessment under the general scheme; and he is bound by the scheme of composition for the one year assessment period. While it is no doubt true that the law declared by the Division bench was under the provisions of the APGST Act, there is no provision, even under the A.P. VAT Act, which confers any right on a dealer to resile from the composition s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, on this ground must fail. Section 4(7)(b) of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by A.P. Ordinance No.7 of 2011, read as under:- Any dealer executing any works contract in the Government or local authority may opt to pay tax by way of composition at the rate of 4% of the total value of contract executed for the Government or the local authority . Section 4(7)(b) of the Act was substituted in its entirety by Ordinance No.7 of 2011 which was promulgated by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on 14.09.2011, and was published in the A.P. Gazette on 15.09.2011. The amended Section 4(7)(b) of the Act, in terms of A.P. Ordinance No.7 of 2011, read as under:- Every dealer executing works .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... substituted initially by Ordinance No.7 of 2011 and later by A.P. Act No.21 of 2011, the rate of tax, in Section 4(7)(b), was increased from 4% to 5% initially by A.P. Ordinance No.9 of 2011 and later by A.P. Act No.12 of 2012. While the earlier Ordinance No.7 of 2011 and Act 21 of 2011 substituted Section 4(7)(b) in its entirety except for continuing the rate of tax at 4%, the later Ordinance No.9 of 2011 and Act 12 of 2012 increased the rate of tax from 4% to 5%. We find no error, therefore, in the order of the assessing authority/appellate authority in levying tax at the increased rate of 5%, instead of the 4% claimed by the petitioner to be the applicable rate of tax. This contention, urged on behalf of the petitioner, also necessitates .....

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