Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 871 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxConstruction contract - Section 42(3) of the MVAT Act - classification of the contract executed by the Appellant - The Appellant's case is that the terms “construction” includes “Repairs and Reconstruction” - Whether a contract for repairs or reconstruction of building is a “Construction contract” as contemplated by Section 42(3) of the MVAT Act? - Held that: - In the construction of Industrial building/real estate, the term “construction” itself means construction, alteration or repair of building structures or other real property. This includes, but not limited to improvements of all types such as bridges, dams, plants, highwaystreet, railway, airport, canals, channels. Above meaning has been recognized in practice and explained under the related law, since long. There is no specific artificial definition brought in force by this Act/notification. Therefore, above meaning, in our view, still hold the field. Therefore, the law needs to be interpreted accordingly - The building and other related items so added in the definition, itself make the position clear that any construction of building if repairs or alters from 2006, it will liable to 5% tax and not 8%. Therefore, not granting benefit of 5% tax to the Appellant is contrary to law. This tax is applicable to repairing or realteration to the old building, bridge and road also. In the present case, the terms “Works Contract” of repair and reconstruction and “Contract of Construction” of building, include repairs and reconstruction, have been in existence for more than 15 years. There is no contra material to dislodge the same. Therefore, the impugned order so passed, requires interference. The question so raised are answered positive accordingly. Whether the Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of rejecting the prayer for prospective effect? - Held that: - the question is answered in the negative against the Respondent. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|