9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, in T.A.Nos.7 of 2016 and 8 of 2016 pertaining to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively under the KGST Act. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these Revision Petitions are as follows: 2. The Revision Petitioner M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited [BHEL] was awarded a contract by the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited [NTPC] for setting up the Kayamkulam Gas Power Project. Two contracts were entered into between the parties on 18.10.1996, one for the supply of plant and machinery and the second for installation of the plant. Thereafter, the petitioner herein entered into an agreement on 20.12.1996 with Daelim Engineering Company Limited, a company based in Korea, for the supply of the on-shore portion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices were realised by the petitioner. 4. The contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Assessing Authority, the First Appellate Authority as also by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, at the time of disposing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, clearly found that as per the provisions of the KGST Act, in relation to taxation of a works contract, the only deductions that the petitioner/assessee could obtain were those that were specifically provided for under the KGST Act and Rules. In the case of a works contract undertaken by the petitioner for and on behalf of the NTPC, where, a portion of the work had been sub-contracted to a sub-contractor, from out of the total receipts of the petitioner, what was permissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same price had been generated both from Daelim to BHEL and BHEL to NTPC. It was only because there was a fluctuation in the exchange rate of US Dollars between the date of raising the corresponding invoice on NTPC and the receipt of payment against the said invoice from NTPC in US Dollars that the petitioner stood to gain. It is her contention therefore that the differential amount on which tax was now demanded by the Department was nothing but an amount that accrued to the petitioner on account of exchange rate fluctuation. This differential amount, not being in the nature of a turnover, could not have been brought to tax at the hands of the petitioner, is the contention. 6. We have also heard Sri.V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned senior Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ented the turnover in respect of the works contract performed at the instance of the petitioner herein. If that be so, the conversion of that amount into Indian Rupees would also bear the nature of turnover in respect of the works contract. The only question to be considered therefore is whether, on account of the exchange rate fluctuation, the benefit of which accrued to the petitioner, the receipt in the hands of the petitioner partook of a nature different from turnover for the purposes of taxation. In our view, what accrued to the petitioner was nothing but a realisation in Indian Rupees of the turnover attributable to the works contract performed by it, which was expressed in US Dollars. Further, insofar as the permissible deductions u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
