9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision and secondly by the Tribunal while deciding the Tax Appeal. Moreover, during the course of hearing of the instant Tax Revision Case also the petitioner was not in a position to bring before this Court any cogent material to dispute or disprove the concurrent finding, except for the oral submissions made so far as the petitioner receiving the cement and steel would amount to second sale or prove the contention that the product received by the petitioner had already suffered tax at the hands of the contractee. The Tax Revision Case thus being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. - HON BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY For the Petitioner : S Krishna Murthy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught from other sides and used in execution of works and second being an amount of Rs. 68,56,528/- representing the value of goods supplied by the contractee M/s. Magunta Acqua Farms Ltd relating to the construction of buildings and associated works. The third transaction and which has become an issue is that of Rs. 63,55,425/- representing the value of goods (cement and steel) supplied by the contractee relating to construction of buildings and associated works for GSLV at SHAR. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner in all these proceedings up till now is non-granting of exemption to the petitioner by the respondent. The authority ought to have considered that taking the goods from another site would not amount to sale and there is no t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order is liable to be set aside/quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order of the Assessing Officer contended that the Assessing Officer has rightly appreciated the fact that cement and steel required for the execution of the contract of the petitioner was one which was made available by the company awarding the contract to the petitioner. Therefore, it has to be considered as a second sale. It has been contended that, the liability of payment of tax would therefore be upon the first seller, which in the instant case is M/s. Magunta Acqua Farms Ltd and M/s.SHAR who had purchased the said raw materials and supplied the same to the petitioner for execution of the work. 8. Learned counsel for the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised by the Department. 11. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department that since the value of the goods was being deducted from the consideration payable to the petitioner for the work executed, it would be a case where the liability of payment of tax in the given circumstances would lie upon the petitioners who were the contractors. The categorical finding by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) also was that the provisions of Section 15 of the CST Act, 1956, would not be attracted here as there was no evidence and no possibility that the cement and steel used by the petitioner for the execution of the work had suffered tax in the hands of the contractees i.e. M/s. Magunta Acqua Farms Ltd and M/s. SHAR, Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product have not been subjected to tax earlier. 15. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the finding arrived at by the Tribunal in paragraph Nos.21 and 23 which for ready reference is reproduced herein under: 21. From the above it is clear that the revisional authority held that the subsequent usage of goods in the execution of works by the contractor amounts to a deemed sale taxable in the hands of the appellant as the said goods have not been subjected to tax. It is not the case of the appellants that the goods received from M/s. Magunta Acqua Farms Limited and SHAR are tax suffered. If the goods are not tax suffered already, they have to be taxed as deemed sale in the face of the legislative intention of single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods involved in the execution of a works contract. We are however, unable to agree with the contention urged on behalf of the contractors that the value of such goods for levying the tax can be assessed only on the basis of the cost of acquisition of the goods by the contractor. Since the taxable event is the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract and the said transfer of property in such goods takes place when the goods are incorporated in the works, the value of the goods which can constitute the measure for the levy of the tax has top be the value of the goods at the time of incorporation of the goods in the works and not the cost of acquisition of the goods by the contractor . In view of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
