2008 (8) TMI 21 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

AP VAT - Once the work is assigned by the contract to its sub-contractor(s) main contractor ceases to execute the works contract because property passes by accretion and there is no property in goods with the contractor which is capable of a retransfer whether as goods or in some other form. Therefore the turnover of sub-contractor is not required to be included into the turnover of the main contractor.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the turnover of sub-contractors should be included in the turnover of the main contractor (L&T) for tax purposes.
2. Interpretation of Section 4(7)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
3. The concept of "deemed sales" in the context of works contracts.
4. Compliance with Rule 17(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.
5. The principle of transfer of property by the sub-contractor and its implications on tax liability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Sub-Contractors' Turnover in Main Contractor's Turnover:
The primary issue was whether the turnover of Rs.111,53,05,835/- of the sub-contractors should be added to the turnover of L&T. L&T argued that there was no provision under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ("2005 Act") for including the sub-contractors' turnover in its returns. The Act's scheme did not contemplate the declaration of sub-contractors' turnover, and the sub-contractors were registered dealers who directly transferred property in goods to the contractee.

2. Interpretation of Section 4(7)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005:
Section 4(7)(a) of the 2005 Act indicates that the taxable event is the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract, which occurs when the goods are incorporated into the works. The value of the goods at the time of incorporation constitutes the measure for the levy of the tax. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 4(7) is a self-contained code and that the transfer of property occurs at the time of incorporation of goods in the works executed.

3. Concept of "Deemed Sales" in Works Contracts:
The Assessing Officer (A.O.) concluded that there were two deemed sales: one from the main contractor to the contractee and the other from the sub-contractors to the main contractor, due to the lack of privity of contract between the contractee and the sub-contractors. The Supreme Court, however, held that even without privity of contract, the principle of transfer of property by the sub-contractor to the contractee applies. This results in a single transaction rather than multiple transactions, aligning with the principle of accretion of property in goods.

4. Compliance with Rule 17(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005:
Rule 17(1)(c) requires sub-contractors to issue tax invoices to the main contractor for the value of goods at the time of incorporation in the sub-contract. The respondent company claimed to have produced all tax invoices from the sub-contractors, but the A.O. did not consider them, operating under the assumption of two deemed sales. The Supreme Court noted that the A.O. should have called for individual contracts, tax invoices, and other necessary particulars before adding the sub-contractors' turnover to the main contractor's turnover.

5. Principle of Transfer of Property by Sub-Contractor:
The Supreme Court held that once the work is assigned by the main contractor to the sub-contractor, the main contractor ceases to execute the works contract as contemplated by Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution. The property in goods passes by accretion, and there is no property in goods with the main contractor capable of retransfer. This principle prevents the addition of sub-contractors' turnover to the main contractor's turnover and avoids double taxation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. It clarified that the property in goods passes to the contractee upon incorporation in the works executed, resulting in a single transaction. The Court also emphasized the need for the A.O. to properly verify individual contracts and tax invoices in future assessments. The judgment ensures that the turnover of sub-contractors, who are registered dealers, is not added to the turnover of the main contractor, thereby preventing double taxation and aligning with constitutional principles.