9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny material to suggest the actual return of the imported goods, the revenue may have been justified in presuming that the goods imported were in fact for incorporation in the works contract, and in such a situation would have been justified in insisting on the assessee discharging the tax liability @ of 7% on the contract value in accordance with Section 8 (a) (i) of the KVAT Act, we find that when the Appellate Tribunal was satisfied on facts regarding proof of return of the imported goods without incorporation of the same in the works contracts undertaken by the assessee for the assessment year in question, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of the concessional rate of tax of 4% in terms of Section 8 (a) (ii) of the KVAT Act. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) of the KVAT Act @ 4% of the contract value. Pursuant to the returns filed by the assessee on that basis, the assessing authority verified the accounts of the assessee for the said year and while perusing the said accounts found that the assessee had effected interstate purchases of goods, purportedly for incorporation into the works contracts. Finding that this dis-entitled the assessee to claim the concessional rate of 4% under Section 8 (a) (ii) of the KVAT Act and that the assessee was liable to pay tax at the rate of 7% in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (i) of the KVAT Act, the assessing authority completed the assessment by directing the assessee to pay tax at the rate of 7% on the contract value. 3. In an appeal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid order of the Tribunal by raising the following questions of law: . 1.Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the conditions under S.8 (a) (i) of the KVAT Act that import of any goods into the State or Country 'for incorporation in the works contract' stands not proved? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in finding that the respondent/appellant proved that the goods imported were not incorporated in the works contract for the year 2015-16 and the goods were returned to the supplier? 5. We have heard Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran, the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner and Sri. Philip Vettickattu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
