2016 (1) TMI 1419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted by the Principal Contractor, and once again seeking to tax the petitioners in respect of the same amount which has been deducted by the principal contractor? - HELD THAT:- The amounts paid to the sub contractor by the principal contractor had already suffered tax in the hands of the principal contractors and that therefore the turn over once again could not be subjected to tax in the hands of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ngineers, Bangalore vs. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2008(64) KLJ 1134. 2. The point for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in not adjusting the tax already deducted by the Principal Contractor, and once again seeking to tax the petitioners in respect of the same amount which has been deducted by the principal contractor. 3. This questi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in Warsaw Engineers, supra, being subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court, since the law as it stands, is what is being followed by this bench, there is no difficulty in allowing these petitions notwithstanding the division bench judgment cited above is subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court. The respondents are directed to adjust the tax already collected from the pri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X